← 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

Muthaiya Anandan, Madurai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward 1(1), Madurai

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

ITA 2985/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2985/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Muthaiya Anandan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 8, Manickam Pillai Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(1), Madakulam, Madurai 625 003. Madurai. [Pan:Afjpa4111N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 208 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 115B

directions of the ld. CIT(A) in the first appeal, held the income as computed by adopting the profit rate as income from other sources and applied the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. The ld. AR 3 I.T.A. No.2985/Chny/24 vehemently argued that the Assessing Officer fell in error ... total receipts as reflecting in the profit & loss account may be treated under the head income from business, but not under the head income from other sources. 6. The ld. DR Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT submits that the finding of the ld. CIT(A) is very much clear that

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ahmednagar vs. Babasaheb Kawad Nighoj Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Ahmednagar

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2242/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2242/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Income Tax Officer, V Babasaheb Kawad Nighoj Ward-2, Ahmednagar. S Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, A/P-Nighoj, Tal-Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar – 414306. Pan: Aaaan1638E Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Suhas P Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 30/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For A.Y.2020-21 Dated 11.09.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : "1) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Is Justified In Allowing The Deduction U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, In Respect Of The Interest Income From Investment Kept With Co-Operative Banks?

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 82P(2)(d)

interest income of Rs.6,36,02,714/- and after allowing proportionate expenditure of Rs.4,00,87,935 /- treated Rs.2,35,14,779/- as Income from other sources, ineligible for deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before ... perused the record placed before us. We observe that the AO disallowed the interest income from investments with Co-operative Banks treating as Income from Other Source is ineligible for deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. However, following the decisions of ITAT, the ld.CIT(A) held as under