← 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

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Rithwik Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 533/HYD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.533/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit Vs. Rithwik Projects (P) Ltd Central Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr5748L (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Smt. U Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16P/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27/07/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit (A) Erred Boith In Law & On Facts Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5,00,00,000/- Towards Amount Received From M/S. Pacl India Ltd Stating That The Amount Received Was Towards Works Contract & The Assessee Had Offered Reasonable

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. U Mini Chandran, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

exclusively for the purpose of earning of Rs.5 Crore. In view of the above, the above receipt of Rs.5 Crore is treated as income from other sources and brought to tax. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1) (c) are initiated initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (Addition: Rs.5

Balasubramaniam Venkitachalam, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tirupur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 827/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.827/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Balasubramaniam Venkitachalam, Income Tax Officer, No.38/34-P.V.G Nagar, Ward-1(2), Valayankadu Extention, Tiruppur. Samundipuram, Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu-641 603. [Pan: Adwpb0330R] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate(Erode) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate(Erode)For Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 69A

assessee that it was explained to the Ld.CIT(A) that his accountant with the aid of some TRP, erroneously showed business income as income from other sources. Before the Ld.CIT(A) details comprising financial statements to this effect were filed. The Ld.CIT(A) however concluded that because the assessee ... noted that the assessee has not been able to provide any demonstrative evidence to indicate the impugned mistake of showing business income as income from other sources. Be that as it may be, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restrict the addition on account of unexplained