← 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

Krishna Plantations Pvt. Ltd, Margao vs. Assessment Unit - Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 199/PAN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji08 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.199/Pan/2023 (A.Y. 2020-21) Krishna Plantations Pvt Ltd, Vs National Faceless 15/1452,Nanuhouse, Varde Assessment Centre, . Valaulikar Road, 2 Floor, F-Ramp, Margoa-403601, Jawaharlal Nehru Goa. Stadium, New Delhi-110003 Pan/Gir No. Aaack6885G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Smt.Bhavya Goyal.Ar Revenue By Shri.Ravindra Hattalli Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 08.05.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale ,Jm: The Assesse Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Nfac/Cit(A) Delhi Passed U/Sec143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Has Not Pressed The Ground Of Appealno.1 & Made Endorsement; Accordingly This Ground Of Appeal Is Treated As Withdrawn & Is Dismissed.

expenditure incurred on carrying out the agricultural operations. The Assessing officer(A.O) also issued show cause notice to treat the expenditure as income from other sources. The assesse has objected to the proposition of the A.O vide letters dealt in the order with the supporting details, evidences on incurring

Kutch District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., Anjar - Kutch vs. The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, New Delhi

ITA 113/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.113& 114/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: (2018-19 & 2020-21) Kutch Dist. Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. C/O Apmc Premises, Versamedinaka, Near Railway Crossing, Anjar, Kukch-370 110 Vs. Income Tax Department, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaak 9845 N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Akshay Modi, Ar राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By :Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/05/2025 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A.L. Saini, A.Μ: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ays) 2018-19 & Ay 2020-21, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) (For Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac'), Both Dated 09.01.2025 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act'), Which In Turn Arose, Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi / Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act, On 05.03.2021 & 25.9.2022, Respectively. 2. Since The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Identical; Therefore, We Have Clubbed These Appeals & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3.

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Modi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 80P(2)(d)

paper book), and the amount of Rs.18,41,436/- is show by the assessee, in the computation of total income, under the head income from other sources, and claimed the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act, at Rs.18,41,436/-. The assessee has also shown, under the head ... income from other sources, amount of Rs.52,350/- as dividend received from Co-operative Bank and claimed the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Page 6 ITA Nos. 113-114/Rjt/2025 (A.Ys. 18-19 & 20-21 Kutch Dist. Co-Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. || સત્યમેવ જયતે || શ્રી અવધ

Shri Bhaktinagar Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Rajkot vs. The ITO 3 (1) (1), Rajkot

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee (ITA No

ITA 200/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.200/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Bhakti Nagar Co Operative Housing Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1) Society Ltd. (Bhaktinagar Circle, Meghani Rang Bhavan, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Course Rajkot) Rong Road, A D Vyas & Co, Charted Accounts, Kotecha Rajkot - 360001 Nagar Main Road, Opp Kotecha Girl’S School, Off Kalawad Road. Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas2363M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ShriGautam Acharya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)

cooperative bank. Hence, the interest income received from any bank, not being a cooperative society, by the assessee has to be assessed as Income from Other Sources and it is not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i)/80P(2)(d) of the Act. The issue of taxability ... marketing agricultural products of its members, interest earned by it by investing surplus funds in short term deposits would fall under the head "income from other sources" taxable u/s 56 of the IT Act and it cannot be said to be attributable to the activities of the Society and therefore

Patel Kalubhai Arjanbhai (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2037/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2037/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ Patel Kalubhai Arjanbhai Income Tax Officer (Huf) Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. Bunglow 235, Lane 12, Satyagrah Chhavni, Satellite, Ahmedabad – 380015, Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaehp0886R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Rupesh R. Shah, Ar. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J L Bhatia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Rupesh R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri J L Bhatia, Sr. DR
Section 250

assessee the agricultural income disclosed by the assessee was not accepted completely and part of it, therefore, added to its income as ‘income from other sources’ and subjected to tax. This was, in turn, confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that ... would, therefore, agitate the confirmation of addition made on account of treating the agricultural income returned by the assessee as ‘income from other sources’ before us. 5. Drawing our attention to the facts of the case, Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that for the impugned the year, the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune vs. M/S. Tata Motors Karmachari Sahakari Patpedhi Limited, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2529/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2529/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, V Tata Motors Karmachari Ward-8(3), Pune. S. Sahakari Patpedhi, H 5 3Rd Floor, C/O.Tata Motors, Pune City, Pune – 411018. Pan: Aabat7682B Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhinay Kumbhar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 04.10.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer Of The Deduction Of Rs. 6,18,57,845/- Claimed Under Section Bop Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Being Interest Earned From The Investments

Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

that the interest income which has been earned by a co-operative society by investing surplus funds would come in the category of 'Income from other sources taxable u/s 56 of the Act and would not qualify for deduction as business income ... activities carried out by the assessee with the non-member Co-operative banks and hence, such interest income needs to be charged as income from other sources under section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned