← 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

DCIT, International Taxation, Jaipur vs. Kavita Chhugani, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 127/JPR/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Ashish Khandelwal, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

submissions of both sides alongwith grounds taken by the Revenue. It is observed that the assessee under consideration is an NRI and having income from other sources and rental income. In his assessment order the AO made two major additions of Rs. 81.72 Lacs and 49.50 Lacs alongwith a small ... receiving the money from his relations, which are in exempted category and can make gift without any tax implication under the head “Income from other sources”. As far as the ingredients (Identity, Creditworthiness and Genuineness) of section 68 of the Act are concerned, those are fully met by the assessee

Anatole Solutions Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1082/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 234ASection 56(2)(viib)

shares to be Rs.11.15 per share under Rule 11UA, resulting in an addition of Rs.29,84,733 to the total income as income from other sources. The assessee claimed that two investors, Ms. Neha Joshi and Ms. Rashmi Verma, were NRIs and submitted few details. These details were found ... calculated to be Rs.11.15 per share. Based on this calculation, the excess share premium amounting to Rs.29,84,733/- was considered as income from other sources and added to the total income. The excess premium received from resident investors (Anna Lungany, Prafull Marwah, and Krishna Behari Lal Katiyar) was added

Income Tax Officer, Gonda vs. M/S. Cane Development Council, Balrampur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 34/LKW/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH.SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jagat Narayan Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl CIT (DR)
Section 14Section 250Section 80P

with the assessee as “profit and gains” of business, whereas in his opinion, the same ought to have been disclosed under the head, “income from other sources” as per the provisions of section 14(F) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld. AO opined that as per the Income ... respect to the entire amount arising from profits and gains of its activities that are attributable to such work. On the other hand, income from other sources covered for income of every other kind which cannot be excluded from total income, if it is not chargeable to income tax under

Income Tax Officer, Gonda vs. M/S. Cane Development Council, Balrampur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 247/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SH.SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jagat Narayan Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl CIT (DR)
Section 14Section 250Section 80P

with the assessee as “profit and gains” of business, whereas in his opinion, the same ought to have been disclosed under the head, “income from other sources” as per the provisions of section 14(F) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld. AO opined that as per the Income ... respect to the entire amount arising from profits and gains of its activities that are attributable to such work. On the other hand, income from other sources covered for income of every other kind which cannot be excluded from total income, if it is not chargeable to income tax under

Income Tax Officer, Gonda vs. M/S Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd, Balrampur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 243/LKW/2020[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Apr 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: SH.SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jagat Narayan Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl CIT (DR)
Section 14Section 250Section 80P

with the assessee as “profit and gains” of business, whereas in his opinion, the same ought to have been disclosed under the head, “income from other sources” as per the provisions of section 14(F) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld. AO opined that as per the Income ... respect to the entire amount arising from profits and gains of its activities that are attributable to such work. On the other hand, income from other sources covered for income of every other kind which cannot be excluded from total income, if it is not chargeable to income tax under

Shalan Jaysingh Kakade, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 14(5), Pune

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 143/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 143/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vs Ito Ward 14(5), Shalan Jaysingh Kakade Maniari Khurd, J K Pune Nivas, Manjari Kolawadi Havali, Pune-412109 Maharashtra Pan-Cylpk1662F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh JainFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B
Section 147Section 250

learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 19,395/-on account Interest and considering the same as Income From Other Sources. Thus, the learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S. Ankur Grand Owners Association, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 480/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:480/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 57Section 70(1)

provisions of Section 70(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which explicitly permits the set-off of losses from one source against income from another source under the same head of income. (c) For that the Learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not allowing ... losses from one source under the head income from other sources amounting to Rs.11,37,183/- against another source under the same head of income being the interest income of Rs.7,88,673/-. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a flat residents welfare association

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Energy Development Agency, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1261/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 10(230)(iv)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

applied for the objects of the Assessee. We note that in the Income & Expenditure Account, the Assessee has disclosed the interest, grants and Income From Other Sources' aggregating to INR 93,03,89,888/-, "Schedule N' forming part of the Financial Statements giving details of 'Income from Other Sources' reads ... under: SCHEDULE N INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES Amount (INR) Amount (INR) REGISTRATION FEE & PROCESSING FEE 3,30,14,000 OTHER INCOME (CONSUTANCY AND PENALTY REC.TEN) 2,79,60,217 VDURG/G'GANI/C WAID/C'WADI II/MOTHA MSEB 5,45,25,510 PESHWE ENERGY PARK- ACCREDITATION FEES AND CHARGES 78,89,000 WIND

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Energy Development Agency, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the

ITA 1260/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

also been granted registration u/s.12A. The return filed for the A.Y.2015-16 filed on 29/09/2015, assessee had computed income in the following manner:- Particulars Income from Other sources Total Receipt as per P&L A/с. Less: 15% Permissible accumulation Less: Amount applied for the Charitable Purpose Total Expenditure ... applied for the objects of the Assessee. We note that in the Income & Expenditure Account, the Assessee has disclosed the interest, grants and Income From Other Sources' aggregating to INR 93,03,89,888/-, "Schedule N' forming part of the Financial Statements giving details of 'Income from Other Sources' reads

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Energy Development Agency, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the

ITA 1259/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2016-17
Section 10Section 10(230)(iv)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

also been granted registration u/s.12A. The return filed for the A.Y.2015-16 filed on 29/09/2015, assessee had computed income in the following manner:- Particulars Income from Other sources Total Receipt as per P&L A/с. Less: 15% Permissible accumulation Less: Amount applied for the Charitable Purpose Total Expenditure ... applied for the objects of the Assessee. We note that in the Income & Expenditure Account, the Assessee has disclosed the interest, grants and Income From Other Sources' aggregating to INR 93,03,89,888/-, "Schedule N' forming part of the Financial Statements giving details of 'Income from Other Sources' reads

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Energy Development Agency, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the

ITA 1258/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
Section 10Section 10(230)(iv)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

also been granted registration u/s.12A. The return filed for the A.Y.2015-16 filed on 29/09/2015, assessee had computed income in the following manner:- Particulars Income from Other sources Total Receipt as per P&L A/с. Less: 15% Permissible accumulation Less: Amount applied for the Charitable Purpose Total Expenditure ... applied for the objects of the Assessee. We note that in the Income & Expenditure Account, the Assessee has disclosed the interest, grants and Income From Other Sources' aggregating to INR 93,03,89,888/-, "Schedule N' forming part of the Financial Statements giving details of 'Income from Other Sources' reads

Sonali Dharmendra Mhatre, Mumbai vs. ITO, WD 3(2), Kalyan

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

ITA 6594/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

account of variation qua unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and Rs.4,17,401/- on account of variation qua income from other sources. 9. The Assessee therefore has claimed that though the said explanation/claim of the Assessee to the tune of Rs.43,32,425/- re- deposited by the Assessee

Dy. Commmissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Prasad Shetty, Sion, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6256/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(a)Section 151ASection 56(2)(vii)

upholding the additions of Rs. 6,05,551 being the difference between the purchase price of the property and stamp duty value as income from other sources u/s 56(2)(vii) (b). 4. Since assessee has challenged the validity of reopening u/s.148 r.w.s. 149(1), therefore same is taken

Rajendra Bhalchandra Mokashi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5154/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ajeet Manwani, AdvocateFor Respondent: R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

Rs.1,98,380/-, net profit from 3 Rajendra Bhalchandra Mokashi, AY 2013-14 profession towards legal fees of Rs.6,75,792/- and income from other sources of Rs.4,01,218/-. Ld. Assessing Officer issued notices u/s. 142(1), to which assessee furnished his reply vide submission dated

Mumbai Port Authority (Successor to Chairman Mumbai Port Trust Erstwhile Bombay Dock Labour Board), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exem) 1-(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 3108/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 5C(2)

confirming the action of Ld. AO in treating the income shown in the computation amounting to Rs.4,65,46,465/- under the head 'Income from Other sources, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case

Gojiya Bhikhubhai, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissionerof Income Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 612/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, Id. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Id.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

been realized, the department cannot take a U turn while framing the assessment of the assessee by taxing the same under the head income from other sources under section 69, 69A and 69B. It has to be assessed under the Head Income from Business. We have explained the source

Shree Samarth Electricals Pvt Ltd, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 610/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

been realized, the department cannot take a U turn while framing the assessment of the assessee by taxing the same under the head income from other sources under section 69, 69A and 69B. It has to be assessed under the Head Income from Business. We have explained the source

Shree Samarth Switchgear and Transmission Pvt Ltd, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 609/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

been realized, the department cannot take a U turn while framing the assessment of the assessee by taxing the same under the head income from other sources under section 69, 69A and 69B. It has to be assessed under the Head Income from Business. We have explained the source

Urmila Mishra, Kanpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(5), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 724/LKW/2024[201718]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Urmila Mishra V. The Income Tax Officer E-1/186, Kda Colony Ward 1(1)(5) Dheli Sujanpur, Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Bndpm1858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 04 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 271ASection 69A

Rs.1,04,328/-, was filed by the assessee, wherein the assessee had shown income from house property at Rs.4,91,628/- and income from other sources at Rs.26,933/-. After initially processing of the return under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called

Bright Land College, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 227/LKW/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Bright Land College, Vs. Income Tax Officer 538A / 543/5, Triveni Nagar (Exemption), Lucknow, The Sitapur Road, Lucknow Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Pan:Aaatb4391F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed On 17.10.2022 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order, Which Is Unlawful, Unjustified & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding Ad Hoc Disallowance Of Expense Of Rs. 1,54,57,795/- Against The Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of Income-Tax Act Without Following The Procedure Laid Down In Sub-Section (1) Of Section 143 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Granting Exemption U/S 11 & 12 Of The I. T. Act, 1961. 1 Bright Land College A.Y. 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 12(1)(b)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250

case are that the assessee filed a return of income in which it showed a total income of Rs.2,25,59,058/- as income from other sources in Column 4 of Part-B-TI of the statement of income. In the column 6(i) of Part-B-TI relating ... expenditure can be set off under income derived from charitable trust, which is a fee collected from a student falling under the head, “income from other sources” i.e. whether capital expenditure could be set off against income from other sources under which the receipts on account of fees had been