← 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

Sri Arumuga Cottspin Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. The ACIT, CC-I, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1098/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1098/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Sri Arumuga Cottspin Pvt. Ltd. Acit बनाम Sf No.919/6, No.2, Pollachi Road, Central Circle-1, / Vs. Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore-642 104. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aajcs-5065-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

amount of Rs.88.19 Lacs was separately added u/s 40A(3). Finally, the assessment was framed determining business income of Rs.115.15 Lacs. The income from other source was assessed u/s 69A at Rs.1997.55 Lacs including protective addition. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the same before first appellate authority. Appellate Proceedings ... verifying cash and stock position. The sales have already been offered by the assessee to tax and taxing the same again as income from other sources u/s 69A would amount to double taxation which is impermissible. 8. It could also be seen that the returns of income

Sri Mahasakthi Mills Limited, Coimbatore vs. The ACIT, CC-I, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1059/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1059/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sri Mahasakthi Mills Limited Acit बनाम/ No.95/13, Vyshnav Building, Central Circle-1, Opp. Kg Cinemas, Race Course Road Coimbatore. Vs. Coimbatore-641 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcs-2111-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 69A

amount of Rs.42.70 Lacs was separately added u/s 40A(3). Finally, the assessment was framed determining business loss of Rs.119.04 Lacs. The income from other sources was assessed u/s 69A at Rs.2067.60 Lacs. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the same before first appellate authority. Appellate Proceedings 4.1 The assessee assailed ... verifying cash and stock position. The sales have already been offered by the assessee to tax and taxing the same again as income from other sources u/s 69A would amount to double taxation which is impermissible. 8. As far as the advances to sister concerns are concerned, we find that

Kailash Rani Shridhar, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Faridabad

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2460/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2460/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2017-18) Kailash Rani Shridhar, R/O H No. 715, Sector 15A, Faridabad, Haryana 121001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Adzps-2752-H बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Faridabad, New Cgo Complex, Nh 4, Nit Faridabad, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Haryana 121001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri A.S Nagpal & Kunal Nagpal, Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 10/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Additional Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals), Aurangabad (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 20.03.2024, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Six Grounds Assailing The Action Of Cit(A) Enhancing The Income From House Property From Rs.14,89,822/- To Rs.15,84,322/- & Enhancing The Income From Other Sources From Rs.5,78,144/- To Rs.8,36,483/-.

For Appellant: S/Shri A.S Nagpal & Kunal Nagpal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR

assailing the action of CIT(A) enhancing the income from house property from Rs.14,89,822/- to Rs.15,84,322/- and enhancing the income from other sources from Rs.5,78,144/- to Rs.8,36,483/-. 2 The assessee has further assailed the order of CIT(A) and Assessing Officer

Mulkh Raj Mehta and Sons HUF, Hisar vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2406/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2406/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Mulkh Raj Mehta & Sons Huf, Vs Pr. Cit, 374, Sector-15A, Hisar, Rohtak, Haryana-125001 Haryana-124001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaihm9927L Assessee By : Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, Ca & Sh. Surajh Bhan Nain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Order Of Pcit, Rohtak Dated 18.03.2024 In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1062878615(1), In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, CA &For Respondent: Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

Sons HUF forming part of enhanced compensation as envisaged in section 45(5) of the Act to ‘revenue receipt’ chargeable to tax as income from other sources. The view taken by the Ld. AO that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act received by the assessee is exempt under ... High Court held that interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is to be treated as ‘income from other sources’ and not under the head ‘capital gains’. The Ld. CIT-DR drew our attention to para 9 and 10 of the decision (supra

Murali Nukala, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle 3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1148/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1148/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Murali Nukala Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Abfpn1674F] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Chaitanya Kumar, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Reema Yadav, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 09/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22/12/2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18 On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Kumar, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Reema Yadav, DR
Section 115Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, deriving income from business and profession and income from other sources, filed his return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 18.09.2018, declaring total income of Rs.24,06,060/-. The case was selected for scrutiny ... consider the gross income reported by the assessee for the F.Y.2016-17, relevant to A.Y.2017-18, the appellant has received Rs.30,07,566/- as income from different sources. Although, there is no justification for crediting the rental income in the bank account of partnership firm, but the availability of income from different

Koodali Public Servants Co-Op Society Limited No C 924, Mattanur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kannur

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

ITA 291/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Koodali Public Servants Co-Op Society Ltd. Matannur P.O., Kannur 670702 [Pan: Aabak8429K] .......... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward -3, Kannur .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2024 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 15.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co-Operative Society Formed For Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 On 08.02.2018 Declaring Total Income At Nil After Claiming Deduction Of Rs. 40,95,091/- U/S. 80P Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Ao Completed The Assessment At A Total Income Of Rs. 40.45,090/- By Denying The Deduction U/S. 80P(2)(D) Of The Act In Respect Of Interest Income Earned From Kannur District Co-Operative Bank.

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Bank/State Co-operative Bank, in the facts and circumstances of the case, do come within Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the income constitutes income from other sources and the only eligible deduction is covered by Section 80P(2)(d) viz. Interest or dividend derived by the assessee from its investments