RAMAKRISHNAN PRABHU JYOTHI,,COIMBATORE vs. ACOT, NCC-5, , COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal is dismissed

property.\nReference under Section 142A is incorrect when specific provision\nof Section 55A available\n19. The Learned CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that the AO wrongly\nreferred the matter to District Valuation Officer when Assesse has\nsubmitted Valuation Report by Approved Valuer. The AO ought to have\nrecorded satisfaction under Sec.55A and in the present case there is no\nrecording

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

House Property\n1. Commercial property at Ponniamman Koil Street, Madipakkam Rs. 48,000 Less 30% standard Deduction Rs. 14,400 Rs.23,600\n2. Residential Property at Selaiyur Rs. 1,20,000 Less 30% standard Deduction Rs. 36,000 Rs.84,000\n3. Navin Building, Madipakkam Rs. 1,20,000 Less 30% standard Deduction Rs. 36,000 Rs.84,000\n4. Sadasivam Nagar

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

69,738 – IFHP [PGBP: Profits and Gains from Business or Profession IFHP: Income from House Property] It is stated by the appellant that the expenses under the head Depreciation on building and furniture fittings, repairs & maintenance (Building & Others), Lease rent and insurance are commonly related to house property and business and hence the appellant itself has restricted the claim

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

69,738 – IFHP [PGBP: Profits and Gains from Business or Profession IFHP: Income from House Property] It is stated by the appellant that the expenses under the head Depreciation on building and furniture fittings, repairs & maintenance (Building & Others), Lease rent and insurance are commonly related to house property and business and hence the appellant itself has restricted the claim

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

69,738 – IFHP [PGBP: Profits and Gains from Business or Profession IFHP: Income from House Property] It is stated by the appellant that the expenses under the head Depreciation on building and furniture fittings, repairs & maintenance (Building & Others), Lease rent and insurance are commonly related to house property and business and hence the appellant itself has restricted the claim

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

69,738 – IFHP [PGBP: Profits and Gains from Business or Profession IFHP: Income from House Property] It is stated by the appellant that the expenses under the head Depreciation on building and furniture fittings, repairs & maintenance (Building & Others), Lease rent and insurance are commonly related to house property and business and hence the appellant itself has restricted the claim

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

69,023 -22,39,023\n2\nNO.77, MEDAVAKKAM MAIN ROAD, MADIPAKKAM\nLet Out\n4,80,000\n1,44,000 5,25,636 -1,89,636 4,80,000 1,44,000\n3,36,000\ncapital was not borrowed for the purpose of\nAcquision or construction or repair. Loan borrowed\non November 3, 2007 (loan against Property)\n3\nNO.154/123,SADASIVAM NAGAR

ITO, CHENNAI vs. SHRI GANGESAN SASEENDRAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2753/Mds/2016 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2012-13

69,15,260/-and claimed the entire sale consideration as deduction u/s.54F of Income tax act, towards the investment in house property. The AO disallowed the claim made by the assessee since the assessee has entered into contract for construction agreement prior to one year before the sale of the long term capital asset. As per the details the assessee

ITO, VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. M/S. P.R. VENKETARAMA RAJA (HUF), RAJAPALAYAM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

house in India then the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s.54 of Income Tax Act. For ready reference, we reproduce the Sec.54 of Income Tax Act which reads as under: :- 12 -: Profit on sale of property used for residence. 68 54. 69[(1)] 70[71[Subject to the provisions of sub-section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI vs. KUMARASAMY PILLAI APARNA, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 999/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kumarasamy Pillai Aparna, Deputy Commissioner Of V. No. 43, Kannadasan Salai, Income Tax, T.Nagar, Srds, Non-Corporate Circle -7(1), Chennai – 600 017. Chennai. [Pan:Afzpa-9359-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vikneswaran, Jcit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

house property is in consonance with the provisions of applicable law and therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the reasoned order of the ld.CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of the revenue. 9. Addition on cash deposits of Rs.52,19,200/-: 9.1 The revenue has raised ground no. 6 & 7 against the action of the ld.CIT

ARTHUR JAGARAJ DEVAPRAGASAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:710/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthur Jagaraj Devapragasam, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.C-5, Marble Arch Apartments, Vs. Income Tax, No.2 Valliammal Street, Non-Corporate Circle-8(1) Vepery, Chennai-600 007. Chennai. [Pan: Acypa-9529-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025

69,04,286/- and confirming the tax thereon Rs.2,05,77,117/-. 3) The NFAC ought to have appreciated that the Appellant had deposited a sum totalling Rs.6.45 Crores in the Capital Gains scheme 1988 with the State Bank of India on 01.10.2016 and 04.10.2016. 4) The NFAC ought to have appreciated that long-term capital gains should be reduced

VIMALARANI BRITTO,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2992/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Smt. Vimalarani Britto Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 13, Kasturba Nagar, Income Tax, 3Rd Main Road, Adyar, Central Circle-2(4) Chennai-600 020. Chennai. Pan: Aadpv 8816C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 71(2) deals with set off of loss from any head of income other than ‘capital gains’ and ‘business or profession’ against income from another head of income including capital gains in the same assessment year. Although, there is no precedence of set off of loss against each head of income is prescribed, but general rule provides

PROTECTRON ELECTROMECH PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.403/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Protectron Electromech The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 9, Athipattan Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 5(2), Street, Mount Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Chennai 600 002. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcp1103B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Devanathan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Guru Bhashyam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai Dated 28.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised Two Effective Grounds In The Appeal Viz., (I) The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D & (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made Under The Head “Income From Other Source”.

69,503/-. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the power charges received by the assessee should have been assessed under the head “income from other sources”. Therefore, adding this income to income from house property, the Assessing Officer held that the deduction under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. A S CARGO MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Tax, New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Corporate Circle-1(1), Block, Navins Presidium, Chennai. Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] आयकर अपील सं./Co No.56 /Chny/2024 (Ita No.1688/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Tax, Block, Navins Presidium, Corporate Circle-1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L.Natarajan, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

house property. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs.8,45,03,079/- made by the Ld. AO and discussed the same on page-9 to 12 of his order. The Ld. DR vehemently argued in favour of the action of the Ld. AO. 14.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. A S CARGO MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Tax, New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Corporate Circle-1(1), Block, Navins Presidium, Chennai. Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] आयकर अपील सं./Co No.56 /Chny/2024 (Ita No.1688/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Tax, Block, Navins Presidium, Corporate Circle-1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L.Natarajan, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

house property. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs.8,45,03,079/- made by the Ld. AO and discussed the same on page-9 to 12 of his order. The Ld. DR vehemently argued in favour of the action of the Ld. AO. 14.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light

M.S.AMARESAN ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1) , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1930/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mr. M.S.Amaresan Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of S-101, 4Th Main Road, Income Tax , Anna Nagar, Non-Corporate Circle-7(1) Chennai. Chennai-600040. Pan : Aafpa 2740N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/ Appellant By Mr. N.Arunraj, Ca For Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate : Mr. Suresh Periasamy,Jcit ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2020 घोषणा क"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23. 12.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per G.Manjunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai Dated 20.06.2017 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai Dated 20.06.2017 In I.T.A.No.24/Cit(A)6/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Cit (Appeals) Erred In Sustaining The Partial Reworking Of The Claim For Tax Exemption U/S 54F Of The Act In The Computation Of Long Term Capital Gains Without Assigning Proper Reasons & Justification. 3. The Cit (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate That The Misconstruction Of Section 54F Of The Act Would Vitiate The Decision Rendered In Para 4.3 Of The Impugned Order & Ought

properties amounting to ` 83 lakhs and `69 lakhs. The assessee further stated that claim of exemption u/s.54F of the Act was in accordance with law, because before amendment to section 54F by the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015, benefit of section 54F will be applicable to more than one residential house

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

house property, (iii) income from business and profession, (iv) capital gains, and (v) income from other sources. Thus, the income earned by an assessee falls under these heads of income. This is possible only if the assessee declares all incomes earned during the previous year truly and fairly. However, there are several instances where the assessees are either suppressing their

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

house property, (iii) income from business and profession, (iv) capital gains, and (v) income from other sources. Thus, the income earned by an assessee falls under these heads of income. This is possible only if the assessee declares all incomes earned during the previous year truly and fairly. However, there are several instances where the assessees are either suppressing their