← 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

Sh. Chattar Singh Tomar, Paonta Sahib vs. ITO, Nahan

ITA 53/CHANDI/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 May 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 51/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 52/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 53/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Shri Chattar Singh Tomar Ito बनाम/ Vs. (Rep. By Lh Shri Raghubir Singh) Nahan Vpo Kamrao, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, Hp "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abapt-2391-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ajay Dhiman (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Sharma (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals Are Recalled Matters. From The Case Records, It Emerges That The Assessee’S Appeals For Assessment Years (Ay) 1999-2000 To 2004-05 Were Disposed-Off By Tribunal Vide Ita Nos.48 To 53/Chandi/2008 Common Order Dated 07-07-2008. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Dhiman (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 153A

owned 45 Bighas and 4 Biswas and most of the land was not cultivated land. Accordingly, 3/4th of this income was treated as income from other sources. The same worked out to be Rs.1.16 Lacs. During first appeal, the assessee did not file any documentary evidences to substantiate the same ... appeal before us. 3.2 In AY 2003-04, the assessee reflected agricultural income of Rs.1.64 Lacs. The Ld. AO treated Rs.1.23 Lacs as income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same against which the assessee is in further appeal before

Sh. Chattar Singh Tomar, Paonta Sahib vs. ITO, Nahan

ITA 52/CHANDI/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 51/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 52/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 53/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Shri Chattar Singh Tomar Ito बनाम/ Vs. (Rep. By Lh Shri Raghubir Singh) Nahan Vpo Kamrao, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, Hp "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abapt-2391-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ajay Dhiman (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Sharma (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals Are Recalled Matters. From The Case Records, It Emerges That The Assessee’S Appeals For Assessment Years (Ay) 1999-2000 To 2004-05 Were Disposed-Off By Tribunal Vide Ita Nos.48 To 53/Chandi/2008 Common Order Dated 07-07-2008. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Dhiman (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 153A

owned 45 Bighas and 4 Biswas and most of the land was not cultivated land. Accordingly, 3/4th of this income was treated as income from other sources. The same worked out to be Rs.1.16 Lacs. During first appeal, the assessee did not file any documentary evidences to substantiate the same ... appeal before us. 3.2 In AY 2003-04, the assessee reflected agricultural income of Rs.1.64 Lacs. The Ld. AO treated Rs.1.23 Lacs as income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same against which the assessee is in further appeal before

Sh. Chattar Singh Tomar, Paonta Sahib vs. ITO, Nahan

ITA 51/CHANDI/2008[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 May 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 51/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 52/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 53/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Shri Chattar Singh Tomar Ito बनाम/ Vs. (Rep. By Lh Shri Raghubir Singh) Nahan Vpo Kamrao, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, Hp "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abapt-2391-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ajay Dhiman (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Sharma (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals Are Recalled Matters. From The Case Records, It Emerges That The Assessee’S Appeals For Assessment Years (Ay) 1999-2000 To 2004-05 Were Disposed-Off By Tribunal Vide Ita Nos.48 To 53/Chandi/2008 Common Order Dated 07-07-2008. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Dhiman (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 153A

owned 45 Bighas and 4 Biswas and most of the land was not cultivated land. Accordingly, 3/4th of this income was treated as income from other sources. The same worked out to be Rs.1.16 Lacs. During first appeal, the assessee did not file any documentary evidences to substantiate the same ... appeal before us. 3.2 In AY 2003-04, the assessee reflected agricultural income of Rs.1.64 Lacs. The Ld. AO treated Rs.1.23 Lacs as income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same against which the assessee is in further appeal before

Kalpana Vijay Kadam, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 841/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.841/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kalpana Vijay Kadam, V The Income Tax Officer, Fi 13, Janki Heights, S.No.250, S. Ward-2(2), Pune. Baner D P Road, Aundh, Pune – 411007. Maharashtra. Pan: Axzpk4350P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P. Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Manish Mehta – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 06.02.2025 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Passing An Ex-Parte Order Without Affording A Reasonable Opportunity To The Appellant. The Order Was Solely Based On The Observations Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) In The

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

confirming the addition of Rs.6,69,652/- as unexplained investments under section 69C of the Act and Rs. 1,54,019/- as income from other sources. The additions were made solely based on the AO's observations without appreciating the facts of the case, the true nature of the transactions ... that you have not filed the return for A.Y.2016-17. Therefore, in view of the above it is assumed that you have earned an income from the sources as mentioned in the table as above during the F.Y.2015-16 relevant to A.Y.2016-17 and there is an escapement of income represented