“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

Centec Rrr Systems and Sensors Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2755/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Letter file dated 13.06.2025For Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr. DR)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35DSection 37(1)

learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) in taxing the interest income from fixed deposits as 'Income from Other Sources' rather than considering it as part of business income. 5. That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant ... decided to proceed with the hearing of the case exparte. 4. In this case, the interest from the fixed deposit was treated as 'Income from Other Sources' instead of 'Business Income' on the ground that the assessee, being a private company, was a non-filer of return voluntarily

Tarun Muradia, Udaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1 Udaipur, Udaipur

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

ITA 848/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132aSection 132tSection 143(2)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

position of alleged additionswas found during the search. Therefore the AO has no jurisdiction to assess the alleged unexplained income as income from other sources invoking provision of section 69A in the year under consideration. 4.2 Accordingly the addition made by the Ld. AO in the proceedings u/s 153A

Shriram Gram Vikas Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur vs. DCIT/ACIT Cir Exemp, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 237/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

previous year, the Assessee has replied „Yes‟ and mentioned the amount of ₹ 1,24,56,743/– being an amount @ 11% of the total income from other sources to the tune of ₹ 12,06,98,465/– while spending more than 85% i.e. 89% i.e. ₹ 10,89,41,721/– and, therefore, complied ... Part B–2(i) sub–clause (4) to sub–clause (9)(i) and sub–clause 9(f), the Assessee clearly shown gross income from other sources and the amount applied to charitable purposes in India during the previous year and the amount accumulated or set apart for application for charitable

Cheekkilode Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Kozhikode

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

ITA 353/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15 Cheekkilode Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Cheekkilode, Atholi, Kozhikode 673315 [Pan: Aaaac8251E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Faridabad [Cit(A)] Dated 30.11.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 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 Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members. The Return

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

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(i)

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

The Thudanganad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Thudanganad vs. ITO, Ward 1, Thodupuzha

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

ITA 332/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Thudanganad Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Thudanganad P.O., Muttom 685587 [Pan: Aacat5997N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Thodupuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik [Cit(A)] Dated 20.03.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 29.10.2017 Declaring Nil Income. The Ito, Ward 2, Thodupuzha (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Issued Notices U/S. 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). In Response To The Notice U/S. 142(1) Dated 09.10.2019, The Assessee Filed Necessary Documents. On Verification Of The Bye Laws & Other Documents It Is Found That The Appellant Is 2 Thudanganad Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Engaged In Banking Activity. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ao Vide Order Dated 19.12.2019 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs. 14,40,605/-. While Doing So, The Ao Disallowed The Claim For Deduction Of Rs. 14,40,605/- U/S. 80P(2)(D) Of The Act Being Dividend Income Received From Other Co-Operative Societies.

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Bethsaida Women Development Society, Trivandrum vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward) Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 283/COCH/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessmentyear:2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.V. Chacko, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 139

benefits of section 12A of the Act. Thereafter, the AO taxed the entire deposits by applying Maximum Marginal Rate under the head “income from other sources”. 3. Aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and argued that for the impugned year