← 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

Uttam Chand Rakesh Kumar, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT Central-1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1653/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumaruttam Chand Rakesh Vs. Pr. Cit Kumar Central – 1, 573, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, New Delhi Khari Baoli, New Delhi – 110 006 Pan : Aacfu 3176 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sachin Kumar, C.A. Respondent By Ms. Anu Krishna Agarwal, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 69

assessment order in this regard whereby the impugned income already declared in the return of income was sought to be re-characterized as income from other sources by invoking section 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Learned Counsel submitted that the differential amount of Rs.1.25 cr. represents income arising from

ACIT Circle-47(1), New Delhi vs. Nav Bharat Trading Company, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 7548/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Maneesh Rajani, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

served upon the assessee. 4. The assessee is in the business as a dealer of food grains and commission agent and has income from other sources. Copy of Audit report in Form 3CD was furnished during the assessment proceedings. On perusal of the same, the Assessing Officer noticed that sale

M/S. Genpact India, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6542/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)

further submitted that in the assessment order at page 4 vide para no. 4.4, AO recorded that this income “is being taxed as income from other sources and exemption u/s. 10AA is not allowable on this income”, however thereafter at pages 22 and 23, the AO further clarified his above

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Genpact India, Gurgaon

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6414/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)

further submitted that in the assessment order at page 4 vide para no. 4.4, AO recorded that this income “is being taxed as income from other sources and exemption u/s. 10AA is not allowable on this income”, however thereafter at pages 22 and 23, the AO further clarified his above

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat State Fertilizer & Chemical Ltd, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 538/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, Shri Jimi Patel and Shri Rushin Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT (DR) &
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 80GSection 8D(2)(ii)

while computing the income under head ‘Profits and gains from business or profession’ and had claimed the same while computing income under head ‘Income from Other Sources’. Disallowing the interest on ECB once again will lead to double disallowance. 9.2 Ld. AR argued that the assessee only has a cash

Gujarat State Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT Circle-1(1)1(), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 348/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, Shri Jimi Patel and Shri Rushin Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT (DR) &
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 80GSection 8D(2)(ii)

while computing the income under head ‘Profits and gains from business or profession’ and had claimed the same while computing income under head ‘Income from Other Sources’. Disallowing the interest on ECB once again will lead to double disallowance. 9.2 Ld. AR argued that the assessee only has a cash

Kongu Trust, Salem vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1267/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

follows:- i) Income from business or profession was taken at Rs.42,78,331/- ii) Rs.4,50,268/- was considered under income from other sources and no set off of loss was allowed against it. 4. Against the intimation issued u/s.143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed rectification application u/s.154

Cisb Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Ld. DCIT, 1(2)1, Mumbai

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

ITA 3311/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Sachin SarawangiFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 37

assessee filed its return of income on 13.12.2021 declaring a total income of Rs.21,00,27,240/-, which comprises business income and income from other sources. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section

Shaha Finlease Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4182/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(1)(viib)Section 68

concluded that assessee received share premium of Rs.46.93/- per share which comes to Rs.6,80,48,500/- which is to be treated as ‘income from other sources.’ 5. Thereafter, he further held that valuation report submitted by the assessee is based on DCF method which although cannot be accepted

Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7445/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &

observed that the exchange gain cannot be equated with capital gain. Thus, he held that the exchange gain has to be treated as ‘income from other sources’. Accordingly, he disallowed the difference due to currency fluctuation and treated it as ‘income from other sources’. The assessee contested the disallowance before ... capital account. That being the factual position emerging on record, the receipts have to be treated as ‘capital in receipt’ and not ‘income from other sources’, as held by A.O. Learned first appellate authority having decided the issue in accordance with settled legal principles, we uphold the same. Grounds

ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 735/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &

observed that the exchange gain cannot be equated with capital gain. Thus, he held that the exchange gain has to be treated as ‘income from other sources’. Accordingly, he disallowed the difference due to currency fluctuation and treated it as ‘income from other sources’. The assessee contested the disallowance before ... capital account. That being the factual position emerging on record, the receipts have to be treated as ‘capital in receipt’ and not ‘income from other sources’, as held by A.O. Learned first appellate authority having decided the issue in accordance with settled legal principles, we uphold the same. Grounds

ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7251/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &

observed that the exchange gain cannot be equated with capital gain. Thus, he held that the exchange gain has to be treated as ‘income from other sources’. Accordingly, he disallowed the difference due to currency fluctuation and treated it as ‘income from other sources’. The assessee contested the disallowance before ... capital account. That being the factual position emerging on record, the receipts have to be treated as ‘capital in receipt’ and not ‘income from other sources’, as held by A.O. Learned first appellate authority having decided the issue in accordance with settled legal principles, we uphold the same. Grounds

Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 788/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &

observed that the exchange gain cannot be equated with capital gain. Thus, he held that the exchange gain has to be treated as ‘income from other sources’. Accordingly, he disallowed the difference due to currency fluctuation and treated it as ‘income from other sources’. The assessee contested the disallowance before ... capital account. That being the factual position emerging on record, the receipts have to be treated as ‘capital in receipt’ and not ‘income from other sources’, as held by A.O. Learned first appellate authority having decided the issue in accordance with settled legal principles, we uphold the same. Grounds

ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 764/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &

observed that the exchange gain cannot be equated with capital gain. Thus, he held that the exchange gain has to be treated as ‘income from other sources’. Accordingly, he disallowed the difference due to currency fluctuation and treated it as ‘income from other sources’. The assessee contested the disallowance before ... capital account. That being the factual position emerging on record, the receipts have to be treated as ‘capital in receipt’ and not ‘income from other sources’, as held by A.O. Learned first appellate authority having decided the issue in accordance with settled legal principles, we uphold the same. Grounds

Bajaj Hindustan Sugar & Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5806/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &

observed that the exchange gain cannot be equated with capital gain. Thus, he held that the exchange gain has to be treated as ‘income from other sources’. Accordingly, he disallowed the difference due to currency fluctuation and treated it as ‘income from other sources’. The assessee contested the disallowance before ... capital account. That being the factual position emerging on record, the receipts have to be treated as ‘capital in receipt’ and not ‘income from other sources’, as held by A.O. Learned first appellate authority having decided the issue in accordance with settled legal principles, we uphold the same. Grounds

Patanakar Shivendra Nagojirao HUF, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1542/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

brief facts anent to this appeal are that the assessee is a HUF stated to be deriving income from Agriculture activities and income from other sources. The assessee filed the return of income on 31.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs.4,97,000/- which was subsequently revised couple of times u/s.139

Sbpl Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 685/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.685/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sbpl Infrastructure Vs. Deputy Commissioner Limited Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aaccs9014M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri M.Vijay Kumar,Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 16/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 13.02.2024 & Pertains To A.Y.2014-15. 2. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By 94 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Submitted That Shri Manoj Sharma, Chief Financial Officer Of The Appellant Company, Who Was Entrusted With The Job Of Looking

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar,CIT-DR
Section 14A

fact that the appellant has received dividend income of Rs.41,40,035/- and the same has been offered to tax as income from other sources, without claiming any exemption u/s 10(34) of the Act. It is also an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer had disallowed 9 expenditure ... fact remains, assuming for a moment that the assessee has offered the dividend to tax under the head ‘income from other sources’, but the same can be considered as suo moto disallowance of expenditure relatable to exempt income by the assessee. Because as per the said principle

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Prakash Nimmagadda, Hyderabad, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 974/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.974/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy.Cit Vs. Shri Prakash Nimmagadda Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpn4246R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order, Dated 20/03/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-9, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT(DR)
Section 17(2)(c)Section 28

income on account of acquiring a property for a consideration less than the fair market value of the property may be taxed as income from other sources and hence, the question of attracting the provisions of section 28(iv) of the I.T. Act, 1961 does not arise. 18. We have ... 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:- (i) dividends; x x x x x x x x x (ix) ..xx xxxxxx (x) where any person receives, in any previous

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 463/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (1997) 227 ITR 172, the interest on FDR is chargeable to tax under the head income from other sources. (d) The contention that appellate authorities have ruled in its favour is not acceptable as issue has not reached finality since department has filed ... interest received is inextricably linked to the cost of the project and therefore, such interest receipt cannot be charged to tax as income from other sources but needs to be reduced from the cost of the project. Even the Government in its letter dated: 11.07.2011 (PB 143) has stated that

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 462/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (1997) 227 ITR 172, the interest on FDR is chargeable to tax under the head income from other sources. (d) The contention that appellate authorities have ruled in its favour is not acceptable as issue has not reached finality since department has filed ... interest received is inextricably linked to the cost of the project and therefore, such interest receipt cannot be charged to tax as income from other sources but needs to be reduced from the cost of the project. Even the Government in its letter dated: 11.07.2011 (PB 143) has stated that