← All Phrases

“income from other sources”

Income HeadsSection 56Section 568,248 judgments

The decision most relied on for income from other sources is Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688), cited in 1,372 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on income from other sources

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT
187 ITR 688 · 1991 · Supreme Court
1,372
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) possesses co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer and can direct the Assessing Officer to perform actions he failed to do, but cannot introduce a new source of income in the assessment. The appellate assessment must be confined to the items of income that were the subject matter of the original assessment.

Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO
322 ITR 283 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,283
citing judgments

The interest income earned by a cooperative society from investing its surplus funds in fixed deposits with banks is not "derived from" its eligible business activities and is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, thus not qualifying for deduction under Section 80P.

K.P. Varghese v. ITO
131 ITR 597 · 1981 · Supreme Court
989
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made merely on the basis of a difference in valuation of assets or a Valuation Officer's report without establishing actual understatement of consideration or the source of unexplained funds through proper enquiry. The Assessing Officer must conduct proper enquiry and satisfy the conditions for making such additions.

GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
327 ITR 456 · 2010 · Supreme Court
663
citing judgments

Tax must be deducted at source from payments made to a non-resident under Section 195 only if such payment is chargeable to tax in India. The Assessing Officer bears the onus to establish that the payments made are indeed chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.
342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court
658
citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT
227 ITR 172 · 1997 · Supreme Court
621
citing judgments

Interest income earned on deposits, particularly before the commencement of business operations or as a requirement for business licensing, is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, and cannot be treated as business income or set off against interest on borrowed funds.

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT
50 ITR 1 · 1963 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.

Liberty India v. CIT
317 ITR 218 · 2009 · Supreme Court
571
citing judgments

The Supreme Court clarified that for profits and gains to be eligible for deductions under sections like 10B, 80IA, or 80IB, the income must be "derived from" or have a direct nexus to the eligible business activity. Income from incidental sources like the sale of scrips/licenses or interest on employee loans is generally not considered as derived from the eligible business for such deductions.

Judgments citing income from other sources

Punnayurkulam Service Co Operative Bank Ltd No P 417, Punnayurkulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Guruvayur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 512/COCH/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2022-23 Punnayurkulam Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Punnayurkulam, Thrissur 679561 [Pan: Aacap6129J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tps, Guruvayur......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri M. Ramdas, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Dated 19.05.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Return Of 2 Punnayurkulam Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income For Ay 2022-23 Was Filed On 01.11.2022 Declaring Nil Income. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 20.03.2024 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At A Total Income Of Rs. 71,77,582/-. While Doing So, The Ao Had Denied Deduction U/S. 80P Of The Act Of Rs. 71,77,582/- In Respect Of Interest Income Received From Co-Operative Banks & Other Banks By Holding That Such Income Is Assessable As ‘Income From Other Sources’.

For Appellant: Shri M. Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 63Section 64Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

respect of interest income received from co-operative banks and other banks by holding that such income is assessable as ‘income from other sources’. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order directed the AO to allow deduction

Nedumon Service Coop Bank, Nedumon vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 489/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 56Section 80HSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)Section 80P(4)

benefit of the individual members and not to the Society itself; that in relation to the Society, it was to be treated as income from other sources since the interest income had lost its nexus with the principal income earned by the Society. The facts in the instant cases ... Bank/State Co-operative Bank, in the facts and circumstances of the case, do come within Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the income constitutes income from other sources and the only eligible deduction is covered by Section 80P(2)(d) viz. Interest or dividend derived by the assessee from its investments

Nedumon Service Coop Bank, Nedumon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Kollam

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 488/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 56Section 80HSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)Section 80P(4)

benefit of the individual members and not to the Society itself; that in relation to the Society, it was to be treated as income from other sources since the interest income had lost its nexus with the principal income earned by the Society. The facts in the instant cases ... Bank/State Co-operative Bank, in the facts and circumstances of the case, do come within Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the income constitutes income from other sources and the only eligible deduction is covered by Section 80P(2)(d) viz. Interest or dividend derived by the assessee from its investments

Umesh Saboo, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1271/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

High Court that once the income was offered during survey as business income, the same cannot be treated as income from other sources and provisions of Sec. 69 will not be applicable. (6) Amitabh B Parekh Navsari Vs. Department of Income Tax (ITAT Ahmedabad (ITA No.3138/Ahd/2008 dated 21/01/2011

Umesh Saboo, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 1270/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

High Court that once the income was offered during survey as business income, the same cannot be treated as income from other sources and provisions of Sec. 69 will not be applicable. (6) Amitabh B Parekh Navsari Vs. Department of Income Tax (ITAT Ahmedabad (ITA No.3138/Ahd/2008 dated 21/01/2011

Skandhanshi Developers, Kurnool vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 528/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

Profession | 4,69,11,754/- (B) | | Suppressed Turnover found during the search | 76,84,00,000/- (C) | | Additional Income admitted in return as 'Income from other sources' | 8,05,00,000/- (D) | | Total Turnover including undisclosed turnover ((A)+(C)) | 1,35,47,96,923/- (E) | | Total Income admitted ... Profession | 4,69,11,754/- (B) | | Suppressed Turnover found during the search | 76,84,00,000/- (C) | | Additional Income admitted in return as 'Income from other sources' | 8,05,00,000/- (D) | | Total Turnover including undisclosed turnover ((A)+(C)) | 1,35,47,96,923/- (E) | | Total Income admitted

Skandhanshi Infra Projects India Private Limited, Kurnool vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 521/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Mr. C. Srinivas Reddy [IRS-Retd.]

Profession | 4,69,11,754/- (B) | | Suppressed Turnover found during the search | 76,84,00,000/- (C) | | Additional Income admitted in return as 'Income from other sources' | 8,05,00,000/- (D) | | Total Turnover including undisclosed turnover ((A) + (C)) | 1,35,47,96,923/- (E) | | Total Income admitted ... Profession | 4,69,11,754/- (B) | | Suppressed Turnover found during the search | 76,84,00,000/- (C) | | Additional Income admitted in return as 'Income from other sources' | 8,05,00,000/- (D) | | Total Turnover including undisclosed turnover ((A) + (C)) | 1,35,47,96,923/- (E) | | Total Income admitted

ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Skandhanshi Infra Projects India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 311/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

Total Income under the head income from Business and Profession Suppressed Turnover found during the search Additional Income admittedin return as 'income from other sources' Total Turnover including undisclosed turnover ((A) + ( C )) Total Income admitted (B + D) Percentage of Overall Profit Percentage of Net profit as per return filed u/s.139 ... Total Income under the head income from Business and Profession Suppressed Turnover found during the search Additional Income admittedin return as 'income from other sources' Total Turnover including undisclosed turnover ((A) + ( C )) Total Income admitted (B + D) Percentage of Overall Profit Percentage of Net profit as per return filed u/s.139

Sharath Kumar Reddy Sareddy, Wanaparthy, Mahabub Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Mahabubnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1096/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1096/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Shri Sharath Kumar Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Sareddy, Wanaparthy Ward – 1 Mahbubnagar Mahbubnagar Pan:Hpwps0712H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/08/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 194BSection 58(4)

order in view of the provisions of section 58(4) r.w.s. 115BB of the I.T. Act and held that in case of the income from other sources, no deduction in respect of any expenses and allowances is allowable in computing income by way of winning from inter alia card games ... income u/s 2(14)(ix) of the Act and submitted that the income from winning lottery, gaming etc., is now assessed as income from other sources and as per the provisions of section 58(4) of the Act, no deduction or allowance is permissible against the said income thereby these

Paltex, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(3)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

ITA 1301/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Paltex, Ito, Ward – 24(3)(1), Plot No.41, Pal House, Vs Piramal Chambers, Marol Co-Operative Society, Lalbaug, Lower Parel, Andherei Kural Road, Mumbai-400012 Andheri (East),Mumbai-400059. [Pan No. Aaafp 1973 F] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 57Section 68Section 71

extent of ₹ 5,69,325/-, which was disallowed by assessing officer on the ground that it was claimed under the head income from ‘other sources’ in instead of business income. The interest was paid to its partner in accordance with section 40(b). The payments of interest was authorised ... loss under profit and gains from business and the resultant the loss be eligible for set-off against income from ‘house property’ and income from other sources under section 71. The partners have offered such interest income in their individual income and paid due tax thereon. Therefore, in substance, there

Balvinder Singh, Karnal, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Karnal, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4346/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

taxmann.com 301 (Del.) wherein the department has succeeded before their lordships that the impugned interest component ought to be assessed as income from “other” sources only. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing vehement contention. It emerges that this tribunal ... capital receipt' forming part of enhanced compensation as envisaged in section 45(5) of the Act to 'revenue receipt' chargeable to tax as income from other sources. The view taken by the Ld. AO that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act received by the assessee is exempt under

Leelu Ram, Gurugram vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurugam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 896/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Leelu Ram, S/O-Mangal Singh, C/O-Ysr Gurugram & Associates, Plot No. 214, Basement, Sector-47, Haryana Pan: Apspr3189Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. M.R. Sahu, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

taxmann.com 301 (Del.) wherein the department has succeeded before their lordships that the impugned interest component ought to be assessed as income from “other” sources only. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing vehement contention. It emerges that this tribunal ... capital receipt' forming part of enhanced compensation as envisaged in section 45(5) of the Act to 'revenue receipt' chargeable to tax as income from other sources. The view taken by the Ld. AO that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act received by the assessee is exempt under

Luxeva India Private Limited, Maharashtra vs. NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed with aforesaid consequences to follow

ITA 4495/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms Neha Vikram, CA &For Respondent: Ms Amisha s. Gupt, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

show-caused why the excess amount in valuation of share (over and above the face value) should not be treated as income from other sources u/s 56(2)(viib) of the IT Act. As on date, there was no response from the assessee with regard to Shares allotted ... view of the above comments by impugned order ld. CIT(A), confirmed the addition of Rs. 13,76,90,152/- as income from other sources u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 5. On hearing both the sides, we find that primarily the investments are by the holding company

Income Tax Officer Ward- 11(3), New Delhi vs. Highrise Securities and Trading Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 30/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Ito, Vs Highrise Securities & Trading Ward-11(3), Pvt.Ltd., G-19, S/F, Room No.410A, Vijay Chokh, Near Tiwari C.R.Building, Complex, Laxmi Nagar, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110092. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aaach3402Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Sudesh Garg, Adv., Bhavya Garg, Adv. & Shri Shubham Sharma, Adv. Date Of Hearing 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

received as excess share premium charged which is taxable u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act and assessed the same under the head “Income from Other Sources” and addition of Rs. 46,06,00,000/- was made. 3. Against this order, an appeal was filed before ... taxmann.com 408 has held as under: “Section 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 11UA of Income Tax Rules, 1962 – Income from other sources – Chargeable as (share premium, valuation of shares) – Assessment Year 2018-19 – Whether Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to substitute NAV method of assessing

Peringandoor Service Co Opertaive Bank Ltd, Athani, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 515/COCH/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2022-23 Peringandoor Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Athani P.O., Thrissur 680581 [Pan: Aadap3407G] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Wd-2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Ramdas M., Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 19.05.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Return Of Income For Ay 2022-23 Was Filed On 30.09.2022 Disclosing Nil

For Appellant: Shri Ramdas M., CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 63Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Bank/State Co-operative Bank, in the facts and circumstances of the case, do come within Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the income constitutes income from other sources and the only eligible deduction is covered by Section 80P(2)(d) viz. Interest or dividend derived by the assessee from its investments

Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

demonetized currency as bogus sale and directed to reduce the same from total sales shown by the appellant and add the same under income from other sources by applying the provisions of section 68 and 69A of the Act and tax as per the provisions of section 115BBE ... demonetized currency as bogus sale and directed to reduce the same from total sales shown by the appellant and add the same under income from other sources by applying the provisions of section 68/69A of the Act and tax as per the provisions of section 115BBE

M/S Gvk Jaipur Expressway Private Limited, Telangana vs. PCIT 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 248/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

income from business or Profession Rs.258,17,77,692 6. Income from capital gain as declared Rs.58,45,354 in ROI 7. Income from other sources Interest Income on FDR Interest on IT Refund 3,36,13,023 10,21,98,628 Sale of Scrap 11,47,206 Income from

Kptcl Empls Co-Op Cr. Soc, Belagavi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 113/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2020-21 Kptcl Employee’S Credit Co-Operative Society, Ltd. 01, Opp. Jnmc College, Nehru Nagar, Belgavi-590010 Pan:Aagfk2092Q . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Ashok Mudnur [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

earned on FD’s from BDCC Ld. PCIT noted that, such interest income is chargeable to tax u/s 56 of the Act as ‘Income from other sources’ [for short ‘IOS’] irrespective of whether such interest was earned out of investment held with scheduled bank or co-operative bank. As such ... submitted that, in view of ‘Totgars Case’ per-se, such interest on FD’s cannot be termed as business income but income from other sources and therefore taxable u/s 56 of the Act. The Ld. DR further argued that, since former facts never been actually inquired into

The Katohar Khurd Co-Op Agriculture Service Scoiety Limited, Amb vs. Income Tax Officer, Una

ITA 197/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Poplani (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar (CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 57Section 69ASection 80ASection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

added the same u/s 69A. The assessee derived interest of Rs.42,47,498/- from various time deposits which was also added as income from other sources. 3. During first appeal, the assessee filed additional evidences / additional grounds which were subjected to remand proceedings. After due consideration of relevant material ... deleted. 4. On the issue of interest income, Ld. CIT(A) held that the said income was to be considered as income from other sources against which the assessee would be able to claim deduction u/s 80P(2)(d). The assessee also contended that it paid interest to its members

Smt Sushama Rajesh Rao, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2012-13 Sushama Rajesh Rao, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.159, Priyadarshani, R. T. Nagar, Of Income Tax, Mla Layout, Circle – 6(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore. Pan : Acypr 5251 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 234BSection 250Section 49Section 50(2)Section 50C

return of income on 30.08.2012 declaring total income of Rs.33,71,480/- comprising of income from capital gains, income from house property and income from other sources. This return was revised on 05.08.2013 at total income of Rs.39,70,830/-. 3. Subsequently, the assessment was completed under section