“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

Kay Power and Paper Limited, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Satara

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

ITA 1437/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 148A

earned by the Appellant Company as profit on trading in derivatives amount as per the Profit and Loss Account as income from other sources assessable u/s 68 whereas the said amount has rightly been declared as income from business; (b) holding that income earned by the Appellant Company as profit

Kay Power and Paper Limited, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Satara

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

ITA 1436/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 148A

Nishant Multi State Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Akola vs. ITO Ward-2, Akola

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 542/NAG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri S.G. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

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

taxed as business income under section 28 of the Act? In our view, such interest income would come in the category of „income from other sources‟ hence, such interest income would be taxable under section 56 of the Act, as rightly held by the assessing officer…..” Nishant Multi State ... income derived by it from its business activities which is assessable under the head “Income From Business” and not under the head ”Income From Other Sources”. We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Co–ordinate Bench in The Ismailia Urban Co–operative Society v/s ITO, ITA no.122/Nag./2023, order

Nishant Multi State Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Akola vs. ITO Ward-2, Akola

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 541/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri S.G. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

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

Nishant Multi State Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Akola vs. ITO Ward-2, Akola

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 540/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri S.G. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

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

Vaishnav Yashwant Ashtankar, Nagpur vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Nagpur 2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/NAG/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

ought to have considered order passed U/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B passed by the NeFAC and NeFAC consider all the replies and relating income from other sources U/s. 56(2) (vii) (b) and were considered and no addition has been madeon 56(2)(vii) (b), again on same issue order passed ... therefore, the Assessing Officer held that this amount should have been added to the total income under the head “Income From Other Sources”, which was not done in the order passed under section 147 r/w section 144B of the Act. 4. Meanwhile, the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (“learned

Yashwant Pandurangji Ashtankar, Nagpur vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Nagpur - 2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/NAG/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

Nagpur-2 ought to have considered order passed U/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B passed by NeFAC and NeFAC considering all the replies and relating income from other sources U/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) and were considered and no addition has been made on 56(2)(vii)(b), again on same issue ... nominal and that the same be considered. The assessee stated that in view of this he had objection in treating Rs.5,64.666/-, as income from other sources as per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the IT Act. The assessee also relied on the following judgements stating

Coal Mines Workers Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 16/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

view that any interest income which arose from the deposits / investments made in the commercial banks is in the nature of income from other sources taxable under section 56 of the Act and cannot be categorised as the income from the profits and gains of business of the assessee ... facilities to the members), the said deduction is not available to the interest income which is in the nature of 'other income' or 'income from other sources' and in the instant case even section 80P(2)(d) of the Act will not come to the rescue of the assessee

Coal Mines Workers Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer NFAC, NFAC Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 15/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Dy Commissioner of Inocme Tax, Circle -2, Nagpur vs. M/S N Kumar Construction Co .Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur

ITA 252/NAG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

opinion that funds introduced by assesse through share holders under guise of premium-AO held that share premium received was taxable under head income from other sources and made U/s. 56(1)-CIT(A) upheld AO‘s view-Held, according to revenue, it was beyond any logical reasoning that

Sekhpara Manikore Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samith Ltd., Balurghat, South Dinajpur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Balurghat

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2081/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2081/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sekhpara Manikore Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samith Ltd…………………………..………Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aagas8001C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Balurghat…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Susanta Saha & Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 06, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.08.2024 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. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Non-Filer Of Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2018-19. It Was Found That The Assessee Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.1,57,66,762/- In The Malda District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. During The Financial Year 2017- 18. Since, The Source Of The Deposit Remained Unexplained, The Department Reopned The Case Of The Assessee By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act After Obtaining Prior Approval From The Competent Authority. In Response To The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Filed Its Return

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

interest on deposits with banks of Rs.26,33,315/-. The Assessing Officer treated the bank interest of Rs.26,33,315/- as ‘income from other sources’ instead of profits and gains from business as claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added this amount to the total income

Subbiyan Rathinakumar, Coimbatore vs. Iro, Ncw-3(2), Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1655/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 133ASection 148

amount of Rs.36,40,000/- [Rs.50,90,000-Rs.14,50,000], the assessee submitted that he had already shown Rs.25 lakhs as his ‘income from other sources’ in his RoI and the balance amount of Rs.11,40,000/- to be sourced from his business income and thus, explained the total ... No.5 of the Paper Book wherein the computation of income is found placed from where it is revealed that the assessee has offered ‘income from other sources’ to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs which assessee submitted to have been invested in the Firm [i.e. out of Rs.36

Subbiyan Rathinakumar, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-3(2), Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1654/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 133ASection 148

Subbiyan Rathinakumar, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-3(3), Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1641/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 133ASection 148

Samir Networks LLP(Previously Known As Samir Stockholdings Pvt. Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1040/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Samir Networks Llp The Acit (Converted From Samir Networks Vs Circle-4(1)91) Private Limited) Ahmedabad [Previously Known As Samil Stockholdings Pvt.Ltd.] 8, Abhishree Residency-2 B/H. Kantam Party Plot, Bopal Ahmedabad – 380 058 (Gujarat) Pan: Aaccs 6455 J (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, AR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

under: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") has erred in confirming the treatment of the interest income earned as income from other sources instead of as business income by the assessing officer ("AO") on the ground that appellant company does not have a license from ... solitary issue in the present appeal, was the treatment of the income returned by the assessee under the head “business income” as an “income from other sources” and thereafter denial of expenses claimed against the same by the assessee, resulting in the entire business receipts of the assessee being subjected

Advik Hi Tech Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Dy.Comm..of Incometax, Circle 8, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1344/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 270ASection 270A(10)Section 270A(7)

order. However, it was noted by the AO that the assessee has offered an additional amount of Rs.21,22,930/- under the head 'income from other sources' in the return of income filed against notice issued u/s.148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, levied penalty of Rs.3 ... appellant. However, it was noted by the AO that the appellant has offered an additional amount of Rs.21,22,930/- under the head income from other sources' in the return of income filed against notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. The AO levied penalty of Rs.3

Narasimha Reddy Chimmula, Gummadidala Village vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 190/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Rani, DR

Section 115BSection 271ASection 44ASection 69

accepted to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- this year also and the balance amount of Rs.13,50,000/- is assessed as income from other sources u/s 69 of the IT Act and accordingly brought to tax u/s 115BBE. The penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC are separately initiated.” 3. Ld.AR

Narasimha Reddy Chimmula, Gummadidala Village vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 189/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Rani, DR

Section 115BSection 271ASection 44ASection 69

Maddi Sudrashan Rao, Chilakauripet vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Guntur

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

ITA 248/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. AparnaVilluri, Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

assessee, proprietor of M/s. Sri Lakshmi Enterprises, is a distributor of ITC Limited having income from house property, income from salary and income from other sources. The assessee filed his return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 24/11/2017 declaring total taxable income of Rs. NIL. Subsequently, the case

Siddharth Sharma, Ghaziabad, India vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3743/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Smt. Renu Jauhri

erred in making the impugned addition in respect of cash deposits in banks on various dates aggregating to Rs. 27,61,000/- as income from other sources, which is absolutely arbitrary, perverse, unlawful, unjustified, unwarranted and is based on mere surmises and conjectures, ignoring the pertinent facts on records that ... erred in making the impugned addition in respect of Cheques deposits in banks on various dates aggregating to Rs. 37,75,000/-; as income from other sources, is arbitrary, perverse, unlawful, unwarranted and is based on mere surmises and conjectures, ignoring the pertinent facts on records that all such cheque