← 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

ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi vs. Spring Infradev Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 611/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year:2016-17]

Section 143(3)Section 45Section 47

this cited case, the assessee had wrongly offered an amount of Rs.2,84,40,475/- received from Heidrick and Struggles Pvt. Ltd. as income from other sources, which according to the assessee was not taxable, in view of the provisions of India US Tax Treaty as the services rendered

Fact Cd Employees Co Operative Credit Society Ltd No E 709, Ernakulam vs. Ward 1 and Tps, Aluva, Ernakulam

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

ITA 469/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Fact Cd Employees Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd........... Appellant 709, Ambalamedu P.O., Ernakulam 682303 [Pan: Aaaaf0134F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Aluva .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

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 is allowed

ITA 216/COCH/2024[AY 2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

benefit of the individual members and not to the Society itself; that in relation to the Society, it was to be treated as income from other sources since the interest income had lost its nexus with the principal income earned by the Society. The facts in the instant cases

Sri.Jose Thomas, Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta vs. The ACIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

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

ITA 212/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

capital asset" and the consideration received on transfer cannot be treated as 'income from capital gain'. The CIT(A) treated it as "income from other sources" so as to tax the same. This finding of the CIT(A) is not proper. The assesses herein were holding trusteeship in the Carmel ... Believers Church, the consideration received for such relinquishment is nothing but a capital receipt and gain on such transaction cannot be considered as "income from other sources". 11.5 The contention of the Ld. AR is that since there is no cost of acquisition, it is not possible to compute capital

Sri.Jose Thomas, Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta vs. The ACIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

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

ITA 211/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

capital asset" and the consideration received on transfer cannot be treated as 'income from capital gain'. The CIT(A) treated it as "income from other sources" so as to tax the same. This finding of the CIT(A) is not proper. The assesses herein were holding trusteeship in the Carmel ... Believers Church, the consideration received for such relinquishment is nothing but a capital receipt and gain on such transaction cannot be considered as "income from other sources". 11.5 The contention of the Ld. AR is that since there is no cost of acquisition, it is not possible to compute capital

Mrs.Gracy Babu, Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

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

ITA 209/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

capital asset" and the consideration received on transfer cannot be treated as 'income from capital gain'. The CIT(A) treated it as "income from other sources" so as to tax the same. This finding of the CIT(A) is not proper. The assesses herein were holding trusteeship in the Carmel ... Believers Church, the consideration received for such relinquishment is nothing but a capital receipt and gain on such transaction cannot be considered as "income from other sources". 11.5 The contention of the Ld. AR is that since there is no cost of acquisition, it is not possible to compute capital

Mrs.Gracy Babu, Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

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

ITA 208/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

capital asset" and the consideration received on transfer cannot be treated as 'income from capital gain'. The CIT(A) treated it as "income from other sources" so as to tax the same. This finding of the CIT(A) is not proper. The assesses herein were holding trusteeship in the Carmel ... Believers Church, the consideration received for such relinquishment is nothing but a capital receipt and gain on such transaction cannot be considered as "income from other sources". 11.5 The contention of the Ld. AR is that since there is no cost of acquisition, it is not possible to compute capital

Mrs.Reena Jose, Pathanamthitta vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

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

ITA 207/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

capital asset" and the consideration received on transfer cannot be treated as 'income from capital gain'. The CIT(A) treated it as "income from other sources" so as to tax the same. This finding of the CIT(A) is not proper. The assesses herein were holding trusteeship in the Carmel ... Believers Church, the consideration received for such relinquishment is nothing but a capital receipt and gain on such transaction cannot be considered as "income from other sources". 11.5 The contention of the Ld. AR is that since there is no cost of acquisition, it is not possible to compute capital

Rajesh Kumar, Uttar Pradesh vs. Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Cente(NFAC), Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 784/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271ASection 69ASection 69C

Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs.15,500/- as Income from other sources. 5. That Ld. AO has made the above addition & disallowance arbitrarily, unjustly and are unwarranted & uncalled for and too high in the present case

Rajesh Kumar, Uttar Pradesh vs. Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Center(NFAC), Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 783/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271ASection 69ASection 69C

Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs.15,500/- as Income from other sources. 5. That Ld. AO has made the above addition & disallowance arbitrarily, unjustly and are unwarranted & uncalled for and too high in the present case

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed on this issue

ITA 414/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT-DR

interest income” and “miscellaneous income” earned by the assessee is liable to be taxed under the head “income from business and profession” and “income from other sources”. However, the Tribunal vide order dated 29.02.204 had incorrectly allowed the appeal of the Department on this issue and had held DCIT ... Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Asst.Year –2016-17 - 2– that such income constitutes “income from other sources”. Accordingly, in M.A. No. 114/Ahd/2024, the ITAT Ahmedabad recalled the earlier / original order passed by ITAT Ahmedabad with the following observations: “Vide the present Miscellaneous Application, the assessee has sought partial recall

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna vs. Nishatbegum Syed Baba Rasool Patel, Parbhani

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1351/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Ito, Ward – 1, Jalna Nishatbegum Syed Baba Rasool Patel Patel Show Company, Vs. Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parbhani – 431401 Pan: Abxpp9642B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 13-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 133A(1)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69C

offered the additional income disclosed amounting to Rs.3,49,79,723/- in the return filed u/s 139 of the Act under the head ‘Income from other sources’ at normal rate of tax. Since there was no explanation offered by the assessee about the source for the expenditure towards furniture ... income is from business activity. It was further submitted that the assessee had inadvertently declared the above income under the head ‘Income from other sources’ instead of ‘business income’. Since the assessee had no other source of income other than the business income, therefore, the additional income so offered during

Mithum Kerur, Vijayapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bijapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)(vii)

made an addition of Rs. 23,33,000/-, being the differential amount, treating it as income from other sources in the hands of the assessee. 7.1 The assessee contended that the land was purchased from a relative as part of a family settlement and was later developed and sold ... amount exceeding Rs.50,000, the difference between the stamp duty value and the consideration shall be chargeable to income tax under the head “income from other sources.” However, the first proviso to section 56(2)(vii) provides an exception in respect of transactions between “relatives,” as defined under Explanation

Narayana Rao Hebri, Sagar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Shivamogga

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2051/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144Section 68

Learned Assessing Officer levied tax & surcharge under section 115BBE merely on the basis that the additional income was offered under the head 'income from other sources'. 4.5. Without prejudice to the above, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in levying ... survey u/s. 133A was conducted on 27.9.2016, the disclosure made therein of Rs.1,14,20,100 admitted as undisclosed income under the head income from other sources and assessee has paid only the normal taxes. According to the AO, this amount should have been offered u/s. 115BBE

Oswald Raphael Misquitta, Vasai Road vs. ITO Int Tax Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 742/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(x)

draft assessment order, ld. AO proposed addition of Rs.6,16,82,500/- being difference amount chargeable to tax u/s.56(2)(x) as ‘income from other sources’. The ld. DRP has confirmed the draft order and accordingly, in the final assessment order, income has been assessed at Rs.6

Ram Rama Products Pvc Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 13(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 65/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Biyani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Thakwani, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 271(1)Section 37

business expenses and further erred in not allowing alternative claim in respect of Interest expenses against income from house property and income from other sources in spite of agreeing to the contention if the assessee as to relationship of such interest expenses with income from house property and proof given ... claiming interest expenses. In view of these facts and as per law the interest expenses claimed by the assessee is not admissible against Income from Other Source and Income from Business and hence the claim of the assessee is disallowed and the interest expenses claimed of Rs.39.92.721/- is added

Vasant N. Barabde, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5372/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Vasant Nagorao Barabde Vs Dcit Circle 27(3), 602, Sanskar Santi Park, Mumbai. Ghatkopar East, Income Tax Officer, Vashi Mumbai 400088 Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai 400703 Pan: Acmpb3211G Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Dharan Gandhi Ca Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Appeal No: Nfac/2017- 18/10041561 Dated 23.08.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 08.03.201 For Ay 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Making The Addition Of Rs 2,88,85.600 By Treating The Market Value Of The Paa Agreement Registered On 21.09.2017 As Taxable Income U/S 56(2)(X) Being Value Of Property For Which No Consideration Is Paid. 2. Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Making The Addition Of Rs 2,88,85.600 In The Hands Of The Assessee Instead Of Treating The Same As Exempt In The Hands Ashwini Barabde The Daughter Of The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

purpose of making addition in the hands of the assessee which is bad in law as it falls under the head “income from other sources”. When income derived from different sources falling under a specific head has to be computed for the purpose of taxation in the manner provided ... appropriate section and no other. If the income from another source falls within a specific head, fact that it may indirectly be covered by another head will not make the income taxable under the later head. Section 56 provides for chargeability of income of every kind which is not chargeable

Sharda Steel Traders, Raipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

ITA 116/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

perusal of the assessment order we found that the AO has made addition u/s.56(2)(vii) of the Act under the head income from other sources as the assessee could not explain the source and details of the investment made by the assessee in M/s Crest Steel and Power

Sharda Steel Traders, Raipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

ITA 115/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

perusal of the assessment order we found that the AO has made addition u/s.56(2)(vii) of the Act under the head income from other sources as the assessee could not explain the source and details of the investment made by the assessee in M/s Crest Steel and Power

Sharda Steel Traders, Raipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

ITA 114/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

perusal of the assessment order we found that the AO has made addition u/s.56(2)(vii) of the Act under the head income from other sources as the assessee could not explain the source and details of the investment made by the assessee in M/s Crest Steel and Power