“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

M/S Quilon Hotels and Resorts Private Limited, Kollam vs. Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Kollam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 145/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Quilon Hotels & Resorts Private Limited .......... Appellant Pallithottam P.O. Beach Road, Kollam, Kerala-691006. Pan: Aaacq1266F Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, .......... Respondent Kollam.

For Appellant: Shri Jibin Jose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

aggregate consideration received for such shares exceeds the Fair Market Value, the difference is to be treated as income under the head “income from other sources”. (ii) Unsecured loans: As per the copy of balance sheet filed for the Asst. Year 2013-14, Rs. 2,20,20,446/- towards unsecured

Thevalakara Farmers Service Co-Operative Bank Limited No.4047, Karunagappally vs. ITO, Ward 2, Alappuzha

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

ITA 133/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Thevalakara Farmers Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Thevalakkara P.O., Karunagappally 690524 [Pan: Aaabt3597M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 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 [Cit(A)] Dated 07.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 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 Primacy Agricultural Co-Operative Society. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Exemption U/S. 80P Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 63Section 64Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

earned from District Co-operative Bank and interest on reserve fund, etc. on the ground that the income is assessable under the head ‘income from other sources’. Similarly, the AO also made addition on account of miscellaneous income. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before

Sh. Sanjiv Jha, Dholpur vs. ITO, Ward-4, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 610/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CA (Thru: V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT -DR a

Section 144Section 148

facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.15,34,300/- by treating the cash deposit in the bank account as income from undisclosed sources ignoring that amount of cash deposit is only Rs.10,10,000/- (correct amount Rs.10 lacs) and source of such deposit is out of earlier ... assessment order was passed u/s 144 at income of Rs.15.35,110/- by holding that cash deposit of Rs.15,34,300/- is my income from undisclosed sources. 4. Against the assessment order CA Sunil Mittal filed appeal before the appellate authority. He filed adjournment application in response to notice

Geeta Devi Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO WD 1(4), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 450/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Badri Lal Agarwal through Legal heir Smt. Geeta Devi G-5, Shyama Residency, Plot No. 7, Purander Ji Ka Bag Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ALGPA5194C अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. S. B. Natani, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख /

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

added to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained money under head Income from Other Sources. 3.2 During the assessment proceedings the assessee suo-moto vide reply filed on 22.06.2019 submitted that "3. The requisite computation of total income

Surendra Pal Singh Sahni, Kota vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/JPR/2024[2005-06]Status: FixedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

Prafulla Shantilal Kothari, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 7, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 922/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.922/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prafulla Shantilal Kothari, Vs. Acit, Circle-7, Pune. Flat No.1, Akshay Plaza, Ramnagar, Wadgaonsheri, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aahhp4593E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora, Shri Saukhya Lakade & Miss Riya Oswal Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per R. K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.02.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Visakhapatnam [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Huf & Is Carrying On Business Of Online Trading In Lottery Tickets Under The Name & Style ‘J.K. Lottery’. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 24.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.51,25,350/-. The Case

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

name and style J.K. Lottery. During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown profits and gains from business and profession and income from other sources. The assessee is an HUF and filed its e-return of income for AY 2017-18 on 24/10/2017, declaring the total income ... CASS under the 'Complete scrutiny criteria. During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown profits and gains from business and profession and income from other sources. Statutory notices were issued to the assessee and the assessee has obliged to the said notices and furnished its replies through e-filing

Pokharna Educational Trust, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1244/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Section 10Section 10(23)Section 10(230)(iad)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 57

transferred to Balance Sheet and not incurred actual expenditure. Ld.DR explained that u/s.57, only the expenditure which has been incurred for earning the Income from Other Sources is eligible for deduction. The so-called expenditure of Rs.64 lakhs was not incurred for earning the Income from Other Sources. Therefore ... A.Y.2020-21 in ITR-5 declaring NIL Income. The Assessee's case was selected for scrutiny to verify deductions from income from Other Sources. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.143(2), 142(1) of the Act. The assessee filed submissions before the Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer passed assessment order u/s.143

Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bengaluru, Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bangalore

ITA 2348/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 250

wherein it was held that interest earned out of surplus funds kept by Co-operative Societies with banks is taxable as income from other sources. Further, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Division Bench in the case of Pr. CIT Hubballi Vs. Totgar ... assessee has utilized the interest bearing funds have been utilized for making the investments, the income has to be assessed under the head "Income from other sources" u/s. 56 of the Act. In such scenario, the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 57 of the Act. This view is supported

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Bangalore Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 2347/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.R

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

wherein it was held that interest earned out of surplus funds kept by Co-operative Societies with banks is taxable as income from other sources. 3. The learned CIT(A)/ NFAC has erred in law in disregarding the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Division Bench ... wherein it was held that interest earned out of surplus funds kept by Co-operative Societies with banks is taxable as income from other sources. Further, he relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Division Bench in the case of Pr. CIT Hubballi Vs. Totgar

Savitrivasudeva Govinda Rao, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-3(3)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2072/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, Advocate

Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to adjudicate the ground raised by the appellant that the addition made under the head income from other sources is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to adjudicate

M/S. Shree Vijayalaxmi Souharda Sahakari Niyamita, Sirsi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1997/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Respondent: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia

Section 234Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

therefore the said income cannot be attributable to the business of the assessee. The AO had treated the said interest income as income from other sources and subjected Page 3 of 6 the said income to tax u/s. 56 of the Act. As against the said order, the assessee filed

Jai Jalaram Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for esult appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for esult appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 2887/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Jai Jalaram Co-Operative Credit The Ito Ward 29(1)(5), Society Ltd., Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Shop No. -2 Ground Floor, Shop Complex, No. -2 Ground Floor, Mulund Mumbai-400051. Siddhivinayak C.H.S. Near Punjab National Bank Zaver Road, Mulund West, Mumbai-400080. Pan No. Aaaaj 2603 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Chavan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

business income not its business income but is to be classified under the but is to be classified under the head “Income from Other Source head “Income from Other Sources”. As regards the alternate plea of s”. As regards the alternate plea of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d), the Assessing ... investment in short term deposits and securities, has to be taxed investment in short term deposits and securities, has to be taxed as income from other sources as income from other sources under section 56 of the Income under section 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such interest cannot

Sangeeta Ratilal Panchal, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 2882/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosainsangeeta Ratilal Panchal Vs Ito, Ward-42(1)(5), Room No.945, Room No.2115, Plot No.335 Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai- Tamil Sangam Chawl, Jawahar 400 051 Nagar, Road No.19, Goregaon West, Mumbai-Alapp5767E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, (SR. DR)

Section 156Section 234Section 234BSection 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(21)(vii)

Rs.12,67,524/- attracts the provisions of section 56(21)(vii)(b) of the Act and hence, the same was considered as “Income from other sources” and added to the total income. 3. However, in order to counter the said addition, the assesse had taken a specific stand that

Priya Kapil Todarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 30(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1838/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 71(2)Section 80A(1)Section 80CSection 80DSection 80GSection 80T

appeal.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The assessee is an individual deriving Income/loss from Business, Capital gain and income from other sources. The Return of income was filed on 25/10/2019 declaring total taxable 3 ITA 1838/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2019-20 Priya Kapil Todarwal income at Rs.98 ... derivatives, Long Term Capital gain of Rs. 1,02,45,891/-, Short Term Capital Gain of Rs. 6,164 and Income from other sources of Rs. 9,38,459/- 2.1 The CPC on e-filing portal proposed adjustment under section 143(1)(a) dated 03/01/2020 stating that the return filed

Mr. 3 Sigma Global Fund, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the gain arising from the transfer of Derivatives cannot be taxed in India and the addition made in this regard stands deleted. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is hereb...

ITA 1130/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Bhaumik Goda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

prejudice to Ground No 1, the learned ACIT has erred, in law and on facts, in treating the gains from derivative transactions as "Income from Other Sources" and taxing at 40% instead of short-term capital gains taxed at 30% under Section 115AD of the Income

Vivira Investment and Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -4, Thane

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

ITA 5448/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

case, the learned AO and CIT(A) were correct in treating the difference between the acquisition price and the quoted market price as "income from other sources" under section 56(2)(x) of the Act, along with Rule 11UA of the Rules. 6. Whether, in the facts and circumstances

Surender Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 4 (1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 351/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 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. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing vehement 2|Page ITA No.351/Del/ 2025 contention ... 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

Income Tax Officer Ward-28(5), Civic Centre J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi vs. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed as above

ITA 1737/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 69ASection 69C

from jewellery business, loss of Rs. (-) 63,54,568/- from Commodity Business and income of Rs. 533/- under the head income from other sources). The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for reasons that there were large cash deposits during demonetization period and there was abnormal increase in sales

Income Tax Officer, Ward 43(6), New Delhi vs. Munish Bajaj and Sons HUF, Delhi

ITA 2782/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 73(1)

this profit of Rs. 4,03,83,930/-. The profit earned by misusing Client Code Modification Facility in F&O segment, denotes the income from undisclosed sources, which shown by you in the guise of speculation business profit. As per the 3 ITO v. Munish Bajaj & Sons ... against income/profit earned of Rs. 4,03.83,930 earned by misusing of Client Code Modification Facility in F&O segment being your income from undisclosed sources. Please explain as to why your set off amount of Rs. 3,47,97,111/- may not be disallowed and added to your taxable

Essar Communications Limited, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle-1 (2)(2), New Delhi

ITA 340/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG

Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

received from EPSL Whether the interest received from EPSL is to be taxed twice both as part of sale consideration as well as 'income from other sources'. Regarding indexed cost of acquisition Whether the indexed cost of acquisition of the VEL shares was correctly computed in the hands