“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

Ala Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.No.R 321, Kodungallur vs. Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed with respect to the issue agitated before us

ITA 586/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.C.A.Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

this income. However, the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee u/s.80P(2)(d) and assessed the interest income under the head “income from other sources”(IOS). 3. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) and contended that the assessee

Siyaram Exports India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(4), Jaipur

ITA 151/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT-DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 50C

making following additions on estimate basis: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Income from Salary 27,00,000 Income from House Property 8,17,320 Income from Other Sources 22,25,471 TOTAL 57,42,791 The action of ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case ... making following additions on estimate basis: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Income from Salary 27,00,000 Income from House Property 8,17,320 Income from Other Sources 23,00,000 Total 58,17,320 The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts

Siyaram Exports India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(4), Jaipur

ITA 145/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

Siyaram Exports India Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 440/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT-DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 50C

Shri Satish Chandra Katta, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 439/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

making following additions on estimate basis: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Income from Salary 27,00,000 Income from House Property 8,17,320 Income from Other Sources 22,25,471 TOTAL 57,42,791 The action of ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case ... making following additions on estimate basis: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Income from Salary 27,00,000 Income from House Property 8,17,320 Income from Other Sources 22,25,471 TOTAL 57,42,791 The action of ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case

Shri Satish Chandra Katta, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, Ground No. 3 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 437/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

Shri Satish Chandra Katta, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 436/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT-DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 50C

Mudaliar and Sons Hotels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 1(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

ITA 838/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mudaliar & Sons Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Acit Circle 1(2)(2), 1, Shreyas Madam Cama Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccm 6781 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. R.R. Makwana, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rajiv Khandelwal

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

treated the entire interest income of Rs.1,63,68,105/ and claimed interest under the head “income under the head “income from other sources” and claimed interest expenses (finance cost) of Rs.1,20,02,204/ expenses (finance cost) of Rs.1,20,02,204/- as deduction u/s 57 of as deduction

Tata Chemicals Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year: 2017-18 Tata Chemicals Limited Pcit-2, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 26(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

utilized the loan amount for making investment in its subsidiary company from which it had earned dividend income which was taxable as income from other sources therefore, assessing officer had not verified the issue of availability of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT treated ... allowable u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act since the assessee will be receiving dividend income on the investment which is taxable as income from other sources. Therefore, the ld. PCIT has treated the assessment order passed by the assessing officer as discussed supra in this order as erroneous

Income Tax Officer - 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Logical Properties Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.5 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3261/MUM/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ram Krishna KediaFor Respondent: Shri Dharmesh Shah

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 68

Assessee does not have business receipts, the Assessee could not claim deduction/set-off of the aforesaid compensation amount with the income under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’. 9.1. In appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the above disallowance of INR.25,00,000/- following the decision of Tribunal in case ... business loss of INR.25,00,000/- arising to the Assessee would have been eligible for set up against income under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’ in terms of Section 71 and 72 of the Act. 11. During the course of hearing the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the Assessment

Dalu Vasu Hiranandani, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) - 2(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1788/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Ruparel , AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(3)Section 24

Whether part of the income assessed originally under the head “Income from House Property” can be reclassified and assessed under the head “Income from Other Sources”. 3. From the original assessment order, it is observed that the income offered under the head “Income from House Property” was assessed under ... proceedings, the Ld. AO took out a part of income which was originally assessed as “Income from House Property” and assessed it as “Income from Other Sources” by holding that certain services rendered along with letting out the premises (as mentioned in rental agreement) are not to be treated

Eapen George, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward International Taxation 1(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2126/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 142Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 234Section 69

assessing officer that there is no income chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee in India except, the salary income and income from other sources which is stated to be in the computation of total income filed before the learned dispute resolution panel and further there

Abhinav Malik, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-31(1), Delhi

ITA 3525/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanabhinav Malik Income Tax Officer, D 114, Saket, Ward-31(1), Delhi-110 017 Vs. Delhi. Pan:Aiypm6590K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Divya Gujral, Ca Department By Shriyogesh Kumar Nayyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/12/2024

For Appellant: (i) That the transaction in hand i.e., the property transacted located at 18, Bl

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)(vii)

order of CIT(A) in restricting the addition at Rs.35,11,070/- as against made by AO at Rs.1,11,68,140/- as income from other sources. To this issue is following two facets were raised by assessee: (i) That the transaction in hand i.e., the property transacted located ... than Rs.50,000/-, then such difference shall be deemed to be the income of such person and would be taxable under the head income from other sources. Finally, he noted that assessee is an individual and received immovable property, the circle rate of which exceeds the sale consideration

Umesh Shambharkar, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Nagpur, Bsnl Rttc Building

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

ITA 49/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 115BSection 147Section 69A

unexplained credits. 6. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in sustaining the interest amounting to Rs 892/ under the head Income from Other Sources. 7. Whether CIT(A) is justified in passing an order in breach of principle of natural justice.” 3. When this appeal is taken

Pink City Jewel House Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur

ITA 598/JPR/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Saurav Harsh, Adv.&

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144oSection 14ASection 263Section 69

surrendered by way of investment in the unrecorded stock of rice has to be brought to tax under the head “business income” or “income from other sources”? - Held that:- ITAT is correct to conclude that in the annual accounts, the purchases of 26 ITA No. 598/JP/2024 Pinkcity Jewelhouse ... purchase and the closing stock, the amount of Rs. 70,04,814/- also found credited in the profit and loss account as income from undisclosed sources. The net effect of this double entry accounting treatment is that firstly the unrecorded stock of rice has been brought on the books

Ferani Hotels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 3859/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay SawantFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 80

seen that there was distinction between the 'income from business' and 'income from property on one side, and 'any income from other sources. The Tribunal, in our considered opinion, was absolutely unjustified in comparing the rental income with the dividend income on the Shares or interest income on the deposits

Vilas Kisan Patil, Uran vs. Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Itd, Panvel

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2178/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2178/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vilas Kisan Patin, V The Assessing Officer, House No.82, Panje, S Assessment Unit, Itd, Uran,Tal.Panvel, Panvel. Dist-Raigad, Maharashtra – 400702. Pan: Ayipp1671N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 29.08.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Addition Of Rs.1,92,72,028/- Made By Ld. Ao By Relying Upon The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Viii) R.W.S 57(Iv) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The I.T.Act, 1961, Not Appreciating That The Said Amount Was Interest Granted U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Thus Bore The Character Of Enhanced Compensation On Acquisition Of Agricultural Land Situated At Village Panje, Tal.Uran, Dist. Raigd, Maharashtra & Was Therefore Exempt From Tax & The Addition Is Required To Be Deleted. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Later, Amend And/Or Vary The Grounds Of The Appeal At Any Time Before The Decision Of The Appeal.” Submission Of Ld.Ar : 2. Ld.Ar For The Assessee Filed A Paper Book Containing 54 Pages. Ld.Ar Filed A Written Submission. Ld.Ar Submitted That Assessee Had Received Rs.3,85,44,057/- As Interest Under Section 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act. Ld.Ar Submitted That Said Interest Is Not Taxable As Held By The Hon’Ble Bombay High Court. Ld.Ar Filed Copy Of The Judgment. Ld.Ar Also Relied On The Following

Section 145Section 145ASection 148Section 23Section 23(1)(A)Section 250Section 28Section 4Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

enhanced compensation referred to in sub-section (1) of section 145B of the Act shall be chargeable to income tax under the head "Income from other sources". Therefore, we hold that the interest granted by the reference Court u/s. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of possession

Pradip Manilal Kanakia, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Mum-C-(174)(1)), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5499/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri.B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Kirti SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

provision explicitly states that the difference between the consideration and the stamp duty value shall be treated as income under the head "Income from Other Sources. The AO has rightly applied the provisions of section 56(2)(x) in the present case. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the order

Kalpana Kannangath Kutty, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissionr of Income Tax Circle-11(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4896/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Kalpana Kannangath Kutty Assistant Commissioner Of Income Flat No. 4506, 45Th Floor, Tower 4, Tax Circle – 112(1), Mumbai Vs. Crescent Bay, Jerbai Wadia Road, Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Road, Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Agipk4160H (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Rutuja Pawar (Virtually Present) A/W. Ms. Sneha More Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Ramachandran, Sr,. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (‘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) 2006-07. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Of The Appellant & In Law Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Upholding The Infructuous Penalty Of Rs. 5,89,279/- Wrongly Levied For A.Y. 2006-07. 2) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Of The Appellant & In Law Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Considering The Penalty Order Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Ld. Ao Prior To Passing Of Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Which Is Dated 19.12.2008. 2 Kalpana Kannangath Kutty

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja Pawar (Virtually Present) a/w. Ms. Sneha MoreFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Ramachandran, Sr,. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275Section 40

income on 30.10.2006, declaring total income at Rs. 6,89,412/- as income from house property, income from profession, business income and income from other sources and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act, were the demand of Rs. 34,970/- was raised

Siddharth Singh, Bareilly vs. ITO-1(1), Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 498/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Siddharth Singh V. The Ito 1(1) 43/S-3, Greater Green Park Bareilly Bareilly Tan/Pan:Frhps5158G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 69A

that the assessee filed his return of income on 17.09.2020, declaring a total income of Rs.3,64,530/- from profit & gains and also income from other sources. The assessee had also claimed Rs.40,12,222/- as exempted income (Agricultural Income). Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for Limited ... assessee with Page 2 of 4 regard to the agricultural income, the AO treated the agricultural income declared by the assessee as income from undisclosed sources and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. The AO, accordingly, completed the assessment under