← 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

Marshall Produce Brokers Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4918/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Harsh Kothari

interest income offered to tax under the head Income the difference in the interest income offered to tax under the head Income from other sources as determined under the cash sys from other sources as determined under the cash system followed by the tem followed by the appellant and that ... variation of the interest income of Rs.1 interest income of Rs.1,28,38,105/- under the head ‘Income from under the head ‘Income from other sources’. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that Before

Marshall Produce Brokers Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4917/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Harsh Kothari

interest income offered to tax under the head Income the difference in the interest income offered to tax under the head Income from other sources as determined under the cash sys from other sources as determined under the cash system followed by the tem followed by the appellant and that ... variation of the interest income of Rs.1 interest income of Rs.1,28,38,105/- under the head ‘Income from under the head ‘Income from other sources’. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that Before

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai vs. Foodlink Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for

ITA 4863/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Mr. Raj Singh Meel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

taxmann.com 123 (Delhi) has held as under: - “Section 56, read with sections 68 and 133, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income from other sources (Sale of opening stock) Assessment year 2014-15 - Assessee was engaged in business of textiles - All sales undertaken by assessee were in cash only Noting ... from sales made by assessee proprietary concern out of its opening stock could not be treated as unexplained income to be taxed as 'income from other sources' - Held, yes [Para 11] [In favour of assessee]” 8.9 The appellant has relied on the decision rendered in the case of Ramlal Jewellers

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai vs. Foodlink Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for

ITA 4854/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Mr. Raj Singh Meel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

taxmann.com 123 (Delhi) has held as under: - “Section 56, read with sections 68 and 133, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income from other sources (Sale of opening stock) Assessment year 2014-15 - Assessee was engaged in business of textiles - All sales undertaken by assessee were in cash only Noting ... from sales made by assessee proprietary concern out of its opening stock could not be treated as unexplained income to be taxed as 'income from other sources' - Held, yes [Para 11] [In favour of assessee]” 8.9 The appellant has relied on the decision rendered in the case of Ramlal Jewellers

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Aakar Bhavan vs. Foodlink Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for

ITA 4851/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Mr. Raj Singh Meel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

taxmann.com 123 (Delhi) has held as under: - “Section 56, read with sections 68 and 133, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income from other sources (Sale of opening stock) Assessment year 2014-15 - Assessee was engaged in business of textiles - All sales undertaken by assessee were in cash only Noting ... from sales made by assessee proprietary concern out of its opening stock could not be treated as unexplained income to be taxed as 'income from other sources' - Held, yes [Para 11] [In favour of assessee]” 8.9 The appellant has relied on the decision rendered in the case of Ramlal Jewellers

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6 (1), Mumbai, Air India Building, Nariman Point vs. Buldana Urban Coop Credit Society Ltd, Buldana

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4398/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Buldana Urban Co-Op. Credit Income Tax, Society Ltd., Central Circle-6(1), Vs. 1, Sahakar Setu, Air India Building, Hutatma Gore Path, Nariman Point, Main Road Buldana, Mumbai Buldana, Maharashtra Pan : Aaaab2567M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal and Shri Vinod GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

allowed as eligible for deduction u/s 80(p)(2)(a) of the I.T. Act and should be charged to tax under the head income from other sources. Since, the assessee has claimed deduction U/s 80P of Rs. 58,36,19,480/- only in its Return of Income ... disallowed u/s 80(P)(2)(a) of the I.T. Act and it must be charged to tax under the head income from other sources instead of Rs.6,32,49,10,603/-. As discussed above, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80(P) of I.T.Act in respect of ineligible incomes

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 183/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a HUF (Hindu Undivided Family) deriving its income from business, capital gains and income from other sources. A search and seizure action was carried out in the Sona Gold Group of cases on 10.01.2014. Assessee was also covered

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 182/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a HUF (Hindu Undivided Family) deriving its income from business, capital gains and income from other sources. A search and seizure action was carried out in the Sona Gold Group of cases on 10.01.2014. Assessee was also covered

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 181/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a HUF (Hindu Undivided Family) deriving its income from business, capital gains and income from other sources. A search and seizure action was carried out in the Sona Gold Group of cases on 10.01.2014. Assessee was also covered

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 180/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a HUF (Hindu Undivided Family) deriving its income from business, capital gains and income from other sources. A search and seizure action was carried out in the Sona Gold Group of cases on 10.01.2014. Assessee was also covered

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 179/PAT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a HUF (Hindu Undivided Family) deriving its income from business, capital gains and income from other sources. A search and seizure action was carried out in the Sona Gold Group of cases on 10.01.2014. Assessee was also covered

Khilan N. Patel (HUF), Surat vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(3), Surat

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

ITA 429/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.429/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Khilan N. Patel (Huf), Vs. The Dcit, 6/2201, Nagarsheri, Mahidharpura, Circle – 2(3), Surat – 395003 (Gujarat) Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakhk6987L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Akshay M. Modi, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

along with questionnaire calling for various details. The Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) found that assessee derived income from capital gain thereon and income from other sources. During the year, ITA No.429/SRT/2024/AY.2016-17 Khilann N. Patel (HUF) assessee had entered into share transactions of listed securities on which STT was paid

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Nagpur vs. Shri Madhusudan M. Mude, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 137/NAG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 132(4)

voluntarily declared the following undisclosed income u/s. 132(4): During the year under consideration, the assessee has earned income from salary and income from other sources i.e. interest from Bank account and other income. During the course of search in the case of the assessee on 06/08/2015, incriminating documents were ... incurred, purchase of property and reconcile the same with the books of accounts, the assessee was not able to do so and disclosed income from undisclosed sources for the year under consideration had not been offered for tax earlier as under :- F.Y. A.Y. Amount (` ) Issue Reference Unexplained investment in Page

Madhusudan Marotrao Mude, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 132/NAG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 132(4)

voluntarily declared the following undisclosed income u/s. 132(4): During the year under consideration, the assessee has earned income from salary and income from other sources i.e. interest from Bank account and other income. During the course of search in the case of the assessee on 06/08/2015, incriminating documents were ... incurred, purchase of property and reconcile the same with the books of accounts, the assessee was not able to do so and disclosed income from undisclosed sources for the year under consideration had not been offered for tax earlier as under :- F.Y. A.Y. Amount (` ) Issue Reference Unexplained investment in Page

Sebastian Asha Cheerakuzhy Nursery, Nilambur vs. I.T.O, Ward-2, Tirur

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

ITA 580/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sebastian Asha .......... Appellant Cheerakuzhy Nursery R.S. Road, Nilambur 679513 [Pan: Azwpa2731K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward -2, Tirur Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.01.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 29.04.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed Her Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 On 30.03.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 69,630/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward -2

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

dated 06.01.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) making additions of Rs. 31,500/- under the head “income from other sources” and Rs. 7,98,300/- on account of disbelieved agricultural income. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before

M/S Sheetal Industries, Khanna vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate and Shri Virsain AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 145Section 153C

which read as under : 1 [145. Method of accounting.—(1) Income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” or “Income from other sources” shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed ... bare perusal of this Section would reveal that income chargeable under the head ‘profit & gains of a business or profession’ or 'income from other sources' shall subject to the provision of sub-section (2) be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly implied

Madhubala Indrakumar Parmar, Pali vs. ITO, Ward 4, Panvel

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2532/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2532/Pun/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Madhubala Indrakumar Parmar, V The Income Tax Officer, Bazar Peth, At Post Pali,Taluka S Ward-4, Panvel. Sudhagad, District Raigad, Maharashtra – 410205. Pan: Aatpp5508P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Subhodh Ratnaparkhi – Ar Revenue By Miss Indira R Adakil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is 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 The A.Y.2014-15 Dated 10.10.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order . The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Addition To The Extent Of Rs.8,50,834/- U/S 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii) Of The I.T.Act 1961, On Account Of Difference Between The Actual Purchase Consideration Of Agricultural Land At Pali, Taluka Sudhagad, Dist. Raigad & The Value As Per

Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items ... prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", namely :— …………………. ITA No.2532/PUN/2024[A] (vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons

Bharat Agarwal Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Lonavala, Pune vs. Assessing Officer, Akurdi, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2182/PUN/2024[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2181 & 2182/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 Shri Bharat Agarwal Assessing Officer, Nagari Patsanstha Akurdi, Pune Maryadit, Vasantdada Patil Vs. Sankul, Lonavala, Pune- 410401 Maharashtra Pan-Aaaal1845P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Shri Pramod S. Shingte Department By: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing: 29-01-2025 Date Of 10-02-2025 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

learned Assessing Officer erred in treating the interest received from investment a sum of Rs. 70,71,431/- 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's action. 3. Without ... learned Assessing Officer erred in treating the interest received from investment a sum of Rs. 52,14,519/-, 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's action. 3. Without

Bharat Agarwal Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Lonavala, Lonavala, Pune vs. Assessing Officer, Akurdi, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2181/PUN/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025
For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in treating the interest received from investment a sum of Rs.70,71,431/- 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 ... learned Assessing Officer erred in treating the interest received from investment a sum of Rs. 52,14,519/-, 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's action. 3. Without

Hiten Dalal, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Cirle 4(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6267/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Hiten DalalFor Respondent: Shri. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 3

been credited to the various bank accounts of the assessee as interest income under the head ‘income from other sources’ arising out of the deposits made in various bank accounts of the assessee. The ld. AO passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w. 147 of the Act, determining total ... after making an addition of the impugned amount to the total income of the assessee under the head ‘income from other sources’. 4. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide order dated 22.10.2024 upheld the addition made by the ld. AO. 5. The assessee