“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

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 461/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

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 460/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Jaipur

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

ITA 455/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

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Jaipur

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

ITA 454/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

DCIT, Circle 6, Jaipur, Ncrb, Jpr vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan Jaipur

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

ITA 453/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

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

DCIT, Circle-6 Jaipur, Ncrb, Jaipur vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Nagar Jpr

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

ITA 452/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

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

Sri. Gangashareshwara Souharda Pattina Sahakari Sangha Ni Gangavathi, Gangavathi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Koppal

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

ITA 2050/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Deepak G., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for department

Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

like this that the assessee is a Co-operative Society providing credit facilities to its members and earning interest income as well as income from other sources. Case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has earned interest ... alternative claim has been made by the assessee in which it is contended that in case interest income is to be taxed as income from other sources, then cost of this may kindly be allowed to the assessee. The counsel for the assessee has also filed written submissions before

Makewaves Sea Resorts Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3861/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrimakewaves Sea Rsorts Pvt. V/S. Dcit, Circle – 4(3)(1) Ltd. बनाम 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Construction House – B, Mumbai-400020 2Nd Floor, 623, Linking Road, Khar(West), Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacm0673J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Sanjaj B. SawantFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(3)Section 23(5)Section 250

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

Sadhana Nayyar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 17(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1310/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

assessee was not legal owner for want of deed of title, was liable to be assessed as income from house property or as income from other sources. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the liability to be assessed was fixed on a person who receives or is entitled

Jai Bajrang Steel, Bhiwadi vs. ITO Ward 44(6) Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 1648/DEL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2012-13 Jai Bajrang Steel, Vs. Ito, Ward 44(6), E-41, R.I.A., Khushkhera New Delhi Bhiwadi, Room No. 1702, E-2 Alwar, Rajasthan Prayaksh Kar Bhawan, (Pan: Aahfj7522R) Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahish Mohmmed, CA &For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 234A

grossly erred in making & confirming the additions of Rs. 50.00 Lakh received on account of cancellation of agreement to sale dated 07.02.2012 as income from other sources, whereas this transaction was duly recorded in the audited books of accounts, financial statements and also duly declared Income tax returns filed ... before the finalization of the appeal. 2. In this case, AO made addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- by treating the same as income from other sources and assessed the income at Rs. 50,45,280/- u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. Upon assessee’s appeal

Nand Kishore Singh, Barabanki vs. Assessement Unit, Income Tax Department, Faceless

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

ITA 674/LKW/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Nand Kishore Singh V. Assessment Unit Jarmapur Income Tax Department Post Barauli Malik Lucknow Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ataps3227Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Jain, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Naman Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 263Section 270ASection 68

Variation in respect of unexplained cash credit : Rs.20,00,938/- Variation in respect of exempt agricultural : Rs.6,50,000/- income treated as income from other sources Total income determined : Rs.44,07,668/- Rounded off : Rs.44,07,670/- 3. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A and 271AAC r.w.s ... dismissing the Ground 3 made in grounds of appeal by disbelieving and making addition of already disclosed exempt agricultural income of Rs.650000 as income from other sources. ITA No.674/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 5 5. Any other ground/s that may be taken at the time of appeal before Tribunal. 6. During

Abhay Benara, Kanpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

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

ITA 267/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Abhay Benara, The Deputy V. Commissioner Of Income C/O 24/4, The Mall Kanpur-208001. Tax, Central Circle-1 Kanpur. Pan:Adlpb2007Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl

Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

Assessing Officer (“AO”) while framing the assessment made various additions i.e. Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs.1,06,05,092/- and income from other sources of Rs.8,35,384/-, disallowance of interest of Rs.12,79,271/- and the addition of Rs.32,65,300/- u/s 68. The AO also made ... assessee in his reply has stated that though assessee is individual in status and enjoying income from salary as Director, trading in cloth, income from other sources, like interest from private parties etc. There was need of fund in the hand of company and the person giving loan in knowing

Matam Lathamma, Secunderabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anakapalle

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 225/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A.225/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Matam Lathamma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward-1, Pan: Adypl2367A Anakapalle. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)

Subsequently, on 30/05/2018, the assessee filed her revised return of income admitting a rental income of Rs. 2,92,320/- under the head ‘income from other sources’. The return was processed and Intimation U/s. 143(1) of the Act was passed on 15/04/2019, wherein the assessee’s claim of deduction ... submitted that while filing the revised return of income, the assessee admitted the rental income of Rs. 2,92,320/- under head ‘income from other sources’ instead of reporting the same under the head ‘income from house property’. But, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 2 lakhs towards interest

Alok Vijawat, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Udaipur

ITA 605/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

S.115BBE specifically refers to the income which are of the nature as referred in S. 68 ,69 ,69A of the Act being the income from other sources. Therefore, subjected income has essentially to be classified u/s 14 of the Act as income from other sources and that is possible only ... business income only i.e. from real estate business and has to be classified u/s 14 r.w.s 28 as business income only and not income from other sources, for the following reasons: 6.1.1 It is submitted that whatever, was disclosed was nothing but additional income only and it cannot be termed

Sh. Hemraj Morya, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1141/JPR/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 147Section 69

having been made u/s 69 of the Act and are held to be taxable/s 115BBE of the Act instead of mentioned as income from other sources’ by the AO.’’ 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee was ex-parte before ... tune of Rs.86,03,320/-u/s 69 of the Act which is taxable u/s 115BBE of the Act instead of mentioned as ‘’Income from other sources’’ by the AO. The ld.AR of the assessee SHRI HEMRAJ MORYA VS ITO,WARD 1(1),JAIPUR submitted that in the interest of equity

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Sony India Software Centre Pvt Ltd, Bellandur, Bangalore

ITA 1550/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 28Section 40a

filed its return of income on 30.11.2017 at Rs.40,11,80,350 comprising of income under the head profits & gains of business and income from other sources. Return of income was picked up for scrutiny which resulted into an assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income

Ashwin S. Mehta (Legal Heir of Late Rasila S. Mehta), Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC- 4(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for

ITA 295/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel (Spl. Counsel for the Department)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 3(2)Section 68

amounting to INR 1,43,36,252 should not be disallowed. In response, the assessee submitted that she had claimed interest expenses against income from other sources amounting to INR 1,25,72,847 and not INR 1,43,36,252. On perusal of the return filed by the assessee ... that the assessee ITA No.295/MUM/2024 (AY. 2020-21) | | has not furnished any specific details providing a direct correlation of such expenses with the income from other sources earned during the year under consideration. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the deduction of interest claimed by the assessee for the following reasons

Ramesh Keshwatkar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1075/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1075/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ramesh Keshwatkar Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-13(1) [Pan :Adopk9626P] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.K.Gupta, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms.Reema Yadav,Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 12/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. Cit(A)], Mumbai, Relating To A.Y.2017-18 On The Following Grounds : 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Addition Of Rs.6,18,000/- Is Not Justifiable. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Ought To Have Closed The Proceedings Against The Deceased Person Especially When The Fact Of Death Of The Assessee Was Brought To The Notice Of Ld.Cit During The Pendency Of Appeal Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Gupta, ARFor Respondent: : Ms.Reema Yadav,DR

Section 69A

wife, submitted that the appellant derives income from pension and interest income. Further out of his retirement benefits and out of pension income and other sources, he had periodically withdrawn cash from the bank account for various purposes. The unutilized amount of cash has been deposited into bank account, since ... accepted the contentions of the assessee and also allowed further relief of Rs.1,50,000/- towards sources for cash deposited from pension and income from other sources. However, confirmed the balance amount of Rs.6,18,500/- on the ground that the appellant could not explain the sources for cash deposited

Yogesh Ginning Mill, Prop. Yogesh Chand Gupta, Govindgarh vs. ACIT, Circle I, Alwar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 540/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

income is from any particular source. It is for the assessee to prove that even if the cash credit represents income it is income from a source which has already been taxed". As per the head notes "Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Corresponding to section ... income is from any particular source. It is for the assessee to prove that even if the cash credit represents Income it is income from a source which has already been taxed. Further it is held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income

Yogesh Ginning Mill, Prop. Yogesh Chand Gupta, Govindgarh vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1045/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68