← 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, Range-3, Lucknow vs. M/S Welldone Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 406/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S Welldone Infrastructure Range-3, Lucknow Private Limited, Lucknow Pan:Aaacw6354Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Amit Singh Chauhan, Addl (Cit) & Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) On 19.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,26,72,571/- Without Appreciate The Fact That The Assessee Is Involved In The Business Of Developing Properties & Selling It & Is Earning Rental Income Which Is Incidental To The "Revenue From Business Operations" Of The Assessee. 2. Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Law & On Facts Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee, While Filing Original Return Of Income Had Itself Considered That Rental Are In The Nature Of Revenue From Business Operations.

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Singh Chauhan, Addl (CIT) & Sh
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 250

paper book. 2. That during the year under consideration, appellant earned income from business and profession, Income from House Property and income from other sources. It filed its original return of income on 03.11.2017 at total income of Rs. 1,40,86,790/-comprising of all these incomes. Net income

The Chanour Co-Operative Aggriculture Service Society Limited, Kangra vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - Dharamshala, Dharamshala

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 464/CHANDI/2024[2017-18 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 464/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Chanour Co-Operative Agriculture Ito - Dharamshala Service Society Ltd. Himachal Pradesh. बनाम/ C/O Shri Tejmohan Singh Vs. #527, Sector-10D Chandigarh – 160011 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacat-7465-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Adv.) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 28-02-2024 Confirming Penalty U/S 270A For Rs.57,715/- As Levied By Ld. Ao Vide Order Dated 14-12-2021 In The Matter Of Quantum Assessment As Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) On 23-12-2019. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Adv.) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(c)

opinion of Ld. AO that the assessee would not be eligible to claim deduction on trading of non-PDS items and income from other sources. Even the computation of income is erroneous. Therefore, the facts of the case do not indicate that there was any attempt to under report

Baglan Prathmik Shikshak Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nampur vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 359/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.359/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Baglan Prathmik Shikshak V The Income Tax Officer, Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, S New Delhi. Nampur – 423204. Maharashtra Pan: Aadab1392C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 31.12.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : "1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Lower Authorities Have Erred In Rejecting Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) For A Sum Of Rs.5,06,310/- Being Part Of The Book Profit Of Appellant Society Without Appreciating The Fact That Earning Of Interest Is An Integral Part Of Society'S Business & Appellant Prays For Allowing Such Deduction.

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

case and in law, the lower authorities have erred in treating the interest received from investment a sum of Rs.5,06,310/-, as income from other sources by rejecting appellants contention that said interest income is integral part of business activity and your appellant prays for cancellation of Assessing officer