“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

Smt. Ranu Malav, Jhalawar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

21. In view of the above discussion, reasons and findings, both these appeals deserve to be allowed

ITA 1445/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271ASection 69

filed for the relevant year, the assessee is stated to have included the abovesaid offered income in its total income under the head "Income from other sources”, and paid tax at normal rate thereon. 9. As regards the other assessee Smt. Ranu Malav, during survey proceedings, a note book ... filed for the relevant year, the assessee is stated to have included the abovesaid offered income in its total income under the head "Income from other sources”, and paid tax at normal rate thereon. 10. The Assessing Officer was of the view that as the unaccounted/unexplained debtors, excess cash

Smt. Sheela Dhakar, Jhalawar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

21. In view of the above discussion, reasons and findings, both these appeals deserve to be allowed

ITA 1443/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271ASection 69

Agra Obstetrical and Gynaecological Society, Agra vs. PCIT, Central, Pune

ITA 549/PUN/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.518/Pun/2023 1. Poona Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, 302/303, Dr. Neety Mandke Ima House, Tilak Road, Shukrawar Peth, Pune 411 002, Maharashtra Pan : Aaatp1435C Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.522/Pun/2023 2. The Mumbai Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, C-114, Ist Floor, D-Wing Entrance, Trade World, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Low Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 Maharashtra Pan : Aaatt4562C Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.549/Pun/2023 3. Agra Obstetrical & Gynaecological Society, 84, M.G. Road, Agra 282 010, Uttar Pradesh Pan : Aabta6327K Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.417/Pun/2023 4. Aids Society Of India, Ground Floor, Maharukh Mandsion, Alibhai Premji Marg, Grant Road (E), Mumbai 400 007 Maharashtra Pan : Aabta4129R Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent 2

Section 12A

Trusts, to whom funds are provided. 2.3 The assessee trust broadly has 3 income heads viz. interest on deposits with banks, donations and income from other sources. The said income from other sources includes conference receipts, membership fees, academic grants or sponsorship, etc. As per the answer to the Q.11

Aids Society of India, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune

ITA 417/PUN/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2025

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 12A

Jsw Energy Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed partly for statistical

ITA 3714/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR/

Section 115JSection 14ASection 37Section 80I

jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Rajendra Prasad Moody was distinguished, as it related to Section 57(iii) (deductions under "Income from Other Sources") and not Section 14A, which has different language and intent. The Special Bench noted that Several High Court rulings (Punjab & Haryana, Gujarat

Mawana Sugars Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 5830/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 144Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

members does not quality for exemption u/s.80P. It is an admitted position that the interest so earned should be taxed as ‘income from other sources' There is a cleavage of judicial opinion among several High Courts on the issue of eligibility of this kind of income for exemption

Dinesh Bohra, Mumbai vs. ITO, W-1, Barmer, Rajasthan

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 373/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Bledinesh Bohra Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Unit 517, Option Primo, Andheri Tax-1, Jodhpur. East, Mumbai-400093 Pan No. Aanpb4468Q Assessee By Shri Gautam Chand Baid, C.A. & Shri Mayank Taparia, Advocate. Revenue By Shri Manoj Kumar Mahar (Cit- D.R.) Date Of Hearing 20.02.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 25.03.2025.

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

taxed at special rate u/s 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. However, the same has been added as income from other sources, it was not taxed at special tax rate u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the IT Act which resulted in under charge of tax and interest having total ... agriculture income has been made and the Assessee has filed appeal u/s 246A disputing the addition of agriculture income being treated as income from other sources. The Assessee has further contended that since the issue of agriculture income has already been dealt with in the assessment order, which is subject

Sumit Sethi, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 1339/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

impugned orders the appellant is a resident of India, but also having salary from a concern in Italy. Income from capital gains and income from other sources (an account with SBI providing interest income), are his additional sources of income in India. 6. As per claim of the appellant

Sumit Sethi, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 1338/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

The Thasra Nagrik Co Op Credit Society Limited, Thasra vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Nadiad

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

ITA 1470/AHD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year: 2016-17 The Thasra Nagrik Co. Op. The Income Tax Officer, Credit Society Limited, Ward-3, Vs. Above Kishan Bhavan, Tower Road, Nadiad Thasra, Gujarat-388 250 [Pan – Aaaat 8344 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) … Assessee By None Revenue By Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 18.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.03.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)

fact and in law to reduce deduction of interest of Rs. 3,59,878 u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) as considering as income from other source without considering explanation and clarification that such fixed deposit is invested from borrowed fund, received from members in course of and for the purpose ... Assessment Year: 2016-17 Page 2 of 5 The disallowance of Interest earned Rs. 3,56,878 from Nationalized Bank, on base of 'income from other source', by AO, without referring section 56 which specifically exclude all type of interest which are earned during course of business. (3) No specific

The Erode District Co-Operative Union, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1) Erode, Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3277/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: the Id.CIT(A). The assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) regarding interest income from investments in co-operative banks was also denied by the Id/CIT(A) for the reason that the deduction was inadmissible since no specific claim had been in the return, citing the section 80A(5) of the Act. The Id. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Id. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT

Section 119Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80A(5)Section 80P(2)(d)

return of the income the appellant had claimed the set off of current years business loss of Rs.25,21,399/- against the income from other sources, however the AO, CPC had restricted the set off to Rs.13,40,490/-. Being aggrieved the appellant has preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT

M /S. Dmi Ltd, Mauritius vs. ACIT Int Tax Circle 2(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 603/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

erred on facts and in law in holding that the corporate guarantee commission is taxable in India in terms of Article 22-Income from other sources of the India Mauritius DTAA which provides that "Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 items of income of a resident

Maharaja Educational Society, Jaipur vs. ITO, Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1519/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 10Section 139(4)Section 144Section 250

erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 7, 93,713/- made by the Ld. AO on account of income from other sources. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in the action of Id. AO in taking the status of AOP and not granting the exemption claimed by the appellant

Sh. Surinder Paul Singh, Derabassi vs. ITO Ward-5(2), Chandigarh

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 487/CHANDI/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.487/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Surinder Paul Singh Ito Ward 5(2) Village Dera Jagadhari Chandigarh-160017 बनाम/ Vs. Ward No17, Post Office Derabassi, Punjab-140507 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aqhps-6902-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Aman Parti (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 Chandigarh [Cit(A)] Dated 03-09-2019 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 31-03-2014. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 936 Days In The Appeal. The Ld. Ar Sought Condonation Of Delay & Tabulated That Excluding Covid-9 Pandemic Lockdown Period, The Effective Delay Is Only For 132 Days (02-

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. AmanFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 4. It is undisputed fact that the assessee is an agriculturist and it earns agricultural income. No other source of income has been shown for the assessee. The assessee owns 26 acres of land as noted by lower authorities. The assessee ... opinion that a lump sum addition of Rs.5 Lacs would meet the end of justice. The same would be assessable as income from other sources. 5. The appeal stand partly allowed. Order pronounced on 24-03-2025. (RAJPAL YADAV) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद" /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated

Vijay Kumar, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-29(1), Minto Road New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3466/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

taxmann.com 301 (Del.) wherein the department has succeeded before their lordships that the impugned interest component ought to be assessed as income from “other” sources only. 5. We have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing vehement contention. It emerges that this tribunal ... capital receipt’ forming part of enhanced compensation as envisaged in section 45(5) of the Act to ‘revenue receipt’ chargeable to tax as income from other sources. The view taken by the Ld. AO that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act received by the assessee is exempt under

Jagjeet Singh & Sons, Guwahati vs. ACIT Cir-2, Guwahati

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

ITA 216/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Adj. PetitionFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, DCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 5,77,92,110/- on account of mismatch in ITR and 26AS, additional income from other sources, unsecured loans, Sundry creditors etc. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed 1st appeal before the ld. 3. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order

Swiss Lifestyle, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.25/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Swiss Lifestyle Naidu Complex, Near Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur-492 001 Pan: Acgfs7296G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 234ASection 44ASection 68

undisclosed sources has not been unearthed by the department and nothing is there on record which shows that the assessee had earned income from other sources other than from its business. Considering these facts, I direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.30,48,500/- from the hands

M/S Jmd Crusher, Jagdalpur, Bastar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Jagdalpur, Bastar

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 104/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year:2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 69A

which the no response was furnished by the assessee is also added to the income of the assessee under the head “Income from Other Sources”. 6. With the aforesaid additions assessed income of the assessee is determined at Rs. 2,58,41,506/- 7. Aggrieved with the impugned additions, assessee

M/S Jmd Crusher, Jagdalpur, Bastar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Jagdalpur, Bastar

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 103/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year:2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 69A

M/S Jmd Crusher, Jagdalpur, Bastar vs. Income Tax Officer-Jagdalpur, Bastar

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 102/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year:2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 69A