← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. R R Industries Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2502/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2502/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. R R Industries Limited, Income Tax, Tvk Industrial Estate, Company Circle 1(1) Guindy, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aaacr 3594H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.K. Rangaswamy, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. D. Komali Krishna, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Rangaswamy, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. D. Komali Krishna, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

assuming that the investments are with a view to earn dividends, the capital invested and the return their from would be assessed under Income from Other Sources. In such an event the Interest on borrowed funds used for the investment in shares would be allowable under the head Income from ... Gujarat High Court-In dividends, the capital invested and the C/TAXAP/1625/2007 return their from would be assessed Order dt.28 January, 2020-(Copy under Income from Other Sources. In Enclosed). such an event the Interest on borrowed Particular reference is drawn from para 35 funds used for the investment in shares

Jasmin Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Kalyan vs. ITO Ward 3(1) Kalyan, Kalyan

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

ITA 6826/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am & And Jasmin Co-Operative Credit Society Ito Ward 3(1) Limited Rani Mansion, Kalyan – 421301. Vs. 6, Joker Plaza, Bail Bazar, Kalyan (West), Thane – 421301. Pan/Gir No. (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Sushant N. Alme Respondent By : Shri. Anil Gupta, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: These Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2015-16, 2019-20 & 2020-21. 2. As The Facts Are Identical In All These Appeals, We Hereby Pass A Consolidated Order To Taking Ita No. 6825/Mum/2024 As A Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri. Sushant N. AlmeFor Respondent: Shri. Anil Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 56Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

being the interest income earned by the assessee from co-operative banks and other financial institutions and treating the same as ‘income from other sources’ u/s. 56 of the Act 5. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, challenging the assessment order

Jasmin Co Operative Credit Society Ltd, Kalyan vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 6825/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am & And Jasmin Co-Operative Credit Society Ito Ward 3(1) Limited Rani Mansion, Kalyan – 421301. Vs. 6, Joker Plaza, Bail Bazar, Kalyan (West), Thane – 421301. Pan/Gir No. (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Sushant N. Alme Respondent By : Shri. Anil Gupta, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: These Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2015-16, 2019-20 & 2020-21. 2. As The Facts Are Identical In All These Appeals, We Hereby Pass A Consolidated Order To Taking Ita No. 6825/Mum/2024 As A Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri. Sushant N. AlmeFor Respondent: Shri. Anil Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 56Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

being the interest income earned by the assessee from co-operative banks and other financial institutions and treating the same as ‘income from other sources’ u/s. 56 of the Act 5. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, challenging the assessment order

Jasmin Co Op Credit Society, Kalyan Thane vs. ITO Ward 3(1) Kalyan, Kalyan

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

ITA 6824/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am & And Jasmin Co-Operative Credit Society Ito Ward 3(1) Limited Rani Mansion, Kalyan – 421301. Vs. 6, Joker Plaza, Bail Bazar, Kalyan (West), Thane – 421301. Pan/Gir No. (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Sushant N. Alme Respondent By : Shri. Anil Gupta, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: These Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2015-16, 2019-20 & 2020-21. 2. As The Facts Are Identical In All These Appeals, We Hereby Pass A Consolidated Order To Taking Ita No. 6825/Mum/2024 As A Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri. Sushant N. AlmeFor Respondent: Shri. Anil Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 56Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

being the interest income earned by the assessee from co-operative banks and other financial institutions and treating the same as ‘income from other sources’ u/s. 56 of the Act 5. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, challenging the assessment order

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 3(4), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan vs. Idbi Bank Ltd, Parth Plazamorbi

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5959/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5900, 5958 & 5959/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2021-22, 2018-19 & 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idbi Bank Ltd., Income Tax -3(4), Apulki Cornermenon, Mumbai Piston Compound, Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) प्रत्याक्षेप सं../C.O. No.280/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5959/Mum/2024) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Idbi Bank Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Apulki Cornermenon, Of Income Tax -3(4), Piston Compound, Mumbai Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT,DR
Section 250

Bank Ltd.. The Tribunal observed that the assessing officer had treated the interest income earned by the respondent Bank on securities as income from other sources. The Tribunal observed that the investments in securities are in stock in trade, and this fact has been CO.No.28/Mum/2024 IDBI Bank ... several occasions during assessment proceedings. Despite this fact, the AO disallowed the above capital loss and treated the same as gains under income from other sources without appreciating that there was in fact a capital loss. The ld.AR has taken us through page-1 to 5 of the paper book