“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. Janakba Maheshdan Gadhvi, Gandhinagar vs. ITO, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1101/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

That the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law, and on facts, in confirming the addition of Rs.27,67,834/- made as income from undisclosed sources, instead of accepting the same as agricultural income earned by the appellant and family members, completely ignoring the evidence on record furnished ... Income Tax Act, 1961 and the order was passed on 30.03.2016 thereby assessing the income as agricultural income, as the assessee earned income from undisclosed source of income and added the same to the total income of the assessee under the head “Income from Other Sources”. As regards

Shahu Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Latur vs. ACIT (Exmp.) Circle, Aurangabad

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

ITA 951/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 10Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56Section 57

purpose of profit, educational schools are run by the trust in Latur District at Udgir and Ahmedpur in rural areas and that the income from other sources includes salary grant received from Government against salary paid to teaching and non-teaching staff is claimed as deduction from other sources ... qualifies for such deduction u/s 57, to furnish details of all cash expenses claimed as deduction u/s 57 and how receipt qualifies for income from other sources as per section 56 of the Act. In the absence of any explanation offered by the assessee, the Ld. AO observed that

Haveli Taluka Veej Kamgar Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6 (1) Pune, Pmt Building, Swargate

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1428/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1428/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Haveli Taluka Veej Kamgar Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit, 415/2 A, Shrine Complex, Somvar Peth, Pune -411011 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(1), Pune Pan : Aaaah2281D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Deepak S. Sasar Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde 05-11-2024 15-01-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.04.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- *1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly Confirmed The Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.8,84,993/- Claimed By The Appellant U/S.80P (2)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of Interest Income Earned From Deposit With Pdcc Bank. 2. Alternatively, The Interest Income Earned By The Appellant From The Investments In A Co-Operative Bank Is Also Eligible For Deduction Under Section 80P (2) (D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. Cit (A) Has Wrongly Confirmed The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S.80P Of Commission Receipts Of Rs.53,52,723/- After Deducting The Salary Expenses Of Rs.3,00,202/- From The Total Commission Receipts Of Rs.56,52,925/-. Being The Same Income Is Received From The Mseb On Account Of Running Cash Counter For Mseb Bill Payments & The Same Is Treated As Income From Other Sources. 4. The Appellant Crave Leave To Add, Delete, Amend, Alter, Vary And/Or Withdraw All Or Any One Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.” 2

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

same income is received from the MSEB on account of running cash counter for MSEB bill payments and the same is treated as Income from Other sources. 4. The Appellant crave leave to add, delete, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw all or any one of the above grounds of appeal ... receipts of Rs.56,52,925/-, the Ld. AO added the amount of Rs.53,52,723/- to the income of the assessee as the income from other sources. The Ld. AO, therefore, completed the assessment on total income of Rs.62

Begraj Agarwal & Ors HUF, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 34(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1370/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 34(1), Kolkata Begraj Agarwal & Ors. Huf Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 110, Diamond Heritage, Unit No.609, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001 Shantipally, Kolkata-700107, Vs. West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabhb8295F Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amuldeep Kaur, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

return of income on 29.07.2013, declaring total income at ₹8,71,380/- under the head Begraj Agarwal & Ors Huf; A.Y. 2013-14 income from other sources, after claiming deduction under Chapter VIA amounting to ₹1,04,768/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter

Tapan Kanti Roy, Kolkata, West Bengal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 36, Kolkata, West Bengal

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

ITA 1055/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(1)Section 145(2)Section 250

appellant to prove the nature and source of such cash deposits, Therefore, the above addition made by the A.O as appellant's income from other sources is sustained and ground of appeal No.6 is hereby dismissed.” 1.3 Further, aggrieved with this action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee ... Appellant as well as explanation offered by the Appellant regarding cash deposits and erred in treating the income under the head of "income from other sources". 4 For that the NFAC/CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the Appellant is engaged in the business of selling Tea in which

Rameshwar Prasad, Patna vs. ACIT Circle - 2 (1), Begusarai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 265/PAT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.265/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Rameshwar Prasad………….. ………...…..…………………....Appellant Purendu Nagar, Near Shiv Mandir, Phulwarisharif, Patna-851117. [Pan: Afdpp7901H] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Begusarai…………….............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. V. Pathy, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 13, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.07.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Original Return Of The Assessee Was Filed On 31.03.2011 Showing A Total Income Of Rs.12,65,190/-. Subsequently, The Assessment Proceedings For The Year Under Consideration Was Reopened By Issuing A Notice U/S 148 Of The Act With The Prior Approval Of The Pcit, Bhagalpur. In Response To The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Failed To Make Any Compliance In Respect Of The Notices Issued Time To Time By The Assessing Officer. Since, The Assessee Remained Non-Cooperative, The Assessing Officer Framed Assessment Order U/S 144 Of The Act By Making An Addition Of

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

I.T.A. No.265/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Rameshwar Prasad Rs.42,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee as undisclosed income under the head ‘income from other sources’. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but the assessee has failed to appear

Hetika Mayankkumar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1718/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice(Retd.) C V Bhadang & Dr.Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Shri SN Divatia with Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shi Yogesh Mishra, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

processed u/s 143(1) on 27.03.2019 whereby the prima facie adjustment was made in respect of “Income from other sources” in as much as it was shown at Rs.10,70,126/- in the return of income whereas it was taken at Rs.54,46,896/- and the total income was recomputed ... Assessee filed application for rectification u/s 154 on the ITBA. However, it was rejected without assigning any reason and income under the head “Income from other sources” was determined at Rs.27,76,297/- as against Rs.3,68,937/- as shown in return. 4. The assessee submitted that

Raheem Malik, Vilupuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Villupuram

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

ITA 2649/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2649/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-2013) Raheem Malik, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.1/42A, Kmamandhal Road, Ward 1, Kallakuruchi, Villupuram 606 202. Villupuram 606 202. [Pan: Bjcpm 8150M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. V. Padmanabhan, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. V. Padmanabhan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 69A

addition under section 69A amounting to INR 31,14,000/- and also added a sum of Rs. 5,264/- to total income as income from other sources. The ld. AR argued that assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A), however the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action

Striton Properties Private Limited (Erstwhile Mars Hotels and Resorts Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3945/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. A/R

Section 32

3944/Mum/2024. The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “1. Treating the income of Rs.53,00,000/- from car parking facilities as income from other sources as against the income from business declared by the appellant. 2. Depreciation claimed u/s 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) on building ... year under consideration, the AO I.T.A. No. 3944/Mum/2024 & I.T.A. No. 3945/Mum/2024 3 breached the principle of consistency and treated the income as income from other sources. 6. At the very outset, it would be pertinent to consider the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay

Striton Properties Private Limited (Erstwhile Mars Hotel and Resorts Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3944/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. A/R

Section 32

Vijay Maneklal Bhansali, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1773/MUM/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivram / Shri Shashi Bekal,ARsFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Agarwal (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 151Section 153CSection 68

said sub-broker was to the tune of Rs 4,89,69,600/- which was treated as non-genuine transaction and added as Income from Other Sources u/s 68 of the Act. 10. The ld.CIT(A) in further appeal before him observed that the appellant at first has denied

National Institute for Teacher Education, Khetri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Guwahati

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

ITA 16/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 144Section 250Section 272B

assessing officer determining total income of Rs. 13,54,560 under the heads Profits and Gains from Business and Profession and Income from Other Sources in the hands of the appellant institution. 2. For that the Learned CIT(A) erred in denying exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) to which

Sachi Desai, Mumbai vs. ACIT Valsad Circle, Valsad

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are treated allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1041/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1041/Srt/2024 (Ay 2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Sachi Desai Assistant Commissioner Of Income- B/3501, Rustomjee Elanza Near Tax, Valsad Circle, Valsad, Aaykar बनाम Inorbit Mall Malad West, Vibhag, Shanti Nagar,Valsad-396 Vs Maharashtrat-400 064 001 [Pan : Aicpv 7841 A] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 10(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

heard and record perused. The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) of the assessee submits that Assessing Officer treated the gift received from HUF, as income from “other sources” by taking view that assessee is not included in the definition of “relative”. The Sachi Desai assessee has received such gift from ... fact that assessee has received gift from HUF wherein she is a member of such HUF. The Assessing Office treated the gift as “income from other sources” by taking view that assessee does not fall in the category of “relative” define in clause-(ii) of Section

Poonam Marwaha, Amritsar vs. ACIT DCIT Cen Cir, Amritsar

ITA 306/ASR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 44ASection 69

I.T.A. No. 306/Asr/2024 Poonam Marwaha v. ACIT DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE

Namitha Deenadayalu Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1572/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Sudheer Pradhu, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

connection with the return of income filed. The assessee has derived income from salaries, house property, profit & gains of business or profession and income from other sources. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has filed the copy of return along with computation of income, statement of bank accounts

DCIT CC 8.2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 4348/MUM/2024[2003 04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Sunil Kumar Singh, Juducial Member Ita Nos. 4324, 4331 & 4345 To 4348/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri NimeshVoraFor Respondent: Smt. SanyogitaNagpal, (CIT, DR)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

receipts of income was from Salary, Income from House Property, Short Term Capital Gains, Long Term Capital Gains and Income from Other Sources. No scrutiny proceedings were initiated for this particular AY under any section of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.Information available shows that a letter dated ... income, the peak balance shown in the said bank account as on November 2005 of USD 55,44,646 has been offered as income from other sources. Thereafter the AO has reopened assessment for AY 2006-07 and passed order u/s 143(3) r.w.s