“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

Aditya Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 54, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1828/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22 Aditya Birla Sunlife Insurance Commissioner Of Income Tax Company Ltd., (A) – 54, 16Th Floor, Tower 1, One World Mumbai Vs. Centre, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400013 (Pan : Aabcb4623J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2021-22 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Aditya Birla Sunlife Tax – Central Circle – 5(3), Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai 16Th Floor, Tower 1, One Vs. World Centre, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400013 (Pan : Aabcb4623J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Ronak Doshi, Ca Revenue : Shri Ajay Chandra, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 234BSection 37(1)Section 44Section 69C

this Act relating to the computation of income chargeable under the head “Interest on securities”, “Income from house property”, “Capital gains” or “Income from other sources”, or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B, the profits and gains of any business of insurance, including any such business carried

Anvis Digital Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Ward 6(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1092/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 50C(2)Section 56(2)(x)

Anvis Digital Pvt. Ltd.., AY 2018-19 assessment by making an addition of Rs.64,78,550/- u/s.56(2)(x) under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’. 3.1. In appeal before ld. CIT(A), assessee took an additional ground contesting that Assessing Officer erred in not referring the valuation

Sudhir Shankar Halwasiya, Lucknow vs. ACIT-3, Lucknow

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

ITA 201/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Sudhir Shankar Halwasiya, The Acit-Iii, Halwasiya Court, Hazratganj, Vs. Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001 Lucknow-226001 Pan:Aanph9171L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, On 3.11.2023, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee, Which Was Filed Against The Order Passed By The Acit-3, Lucknow Under Section 143(3) On 20.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

scrutiny on the following points:- i. Whether loans and advances were received were genuine and from disclosed sources. ii. Whether the deduction against income from other sources had been correctly shown in the return of income. iii. Whether the cash deposit had been made from disclosed sources

Mahesh Urban Co-Op Credit Society Limited, Malkapur vs. ITO Ward-1, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 338/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri M.C. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(i)Section 80P(4)

derived by it from its business activities and is in the nature of receipts from other sources. The learned AO thus wrongly worked Income from Other Source of 2 Mahesh Urban Co–operative Credit Society Limited ITA no.337/Nag./2024 Rs.3388980. Correctly computed and declared by the appellant in accordance ... 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…..” 19.1 However

Mahesh Urban Co-Op Credit Society Limited, Malkapur vs. ITO Ward -1, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 337/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri M.C. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(i)Section 80P(4)

The Mahabeej Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Akola, Akola vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/NAG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 234ASection 80P(2)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…..” 19.1 However ... 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”. I, 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

Nagpur Dhanya Bazar Gruh Nirman Sahakari Samitee Limited, Nagpur vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 378/NAG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(i)Section 80P(4)

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…..” 19.1 However ... amount received from the Members of Co–operative Society is assessable under the head “Income From Business” and not under the head ”Income From Other Sources”. I, 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

DCIT-CC-1(3), Nagpur vs. R.B.S.D. and F.N. Das(Export Firm), Vizianagram

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 234/NAG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

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

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 69C

13/02/2022, declaring total income of ` 18,01,81,210. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS, with the reason of “Income from other sources”. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 29/06/2021, and duly served. Notice under section

Shri Prakash Jiwandas Wanjari, Nagpur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

ITA 232/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 273ASection 80C

23rd August, 2018, disclosing total income of Rs.3,55,623/- of which income from salary disclosed was Rs.4,55,623/-, income from other sources offered was Rs.NIL and deduction u/s 80C were Rs.1,00,000/-. 2.1 The Assessing officer issued online notice u/s 148 on 29th March, 2018, requiring

Raithara Arecanut Marketing and Processing Co-Operative Society Limited, Bhadravathi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 and Tps, Shimoga

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

ITA 1775/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Vasant Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT

Section 60Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

assessee on the ground that interest income earned by making investment of surplus funds has to be assessed under the head "Income from Other Sources" and not income from business and since interest income is not assessed as business income, the claim for deduction under section ... securities by a Co-operative Society providing credit facilities to members or marketing agricultural produce to members is not business income but income from other sources and the society is not entitled to special deduction. 2.7. While Ld.AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court

Olympic Oil Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4327/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Aishwarya Pawar, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R

Section 201Section 40

limited company deriving its income from business of wholesale and retail trading of electronic parts and equipment of other products and also derives income from other sources. 3.1. The assessee borrowed loans from Frost Infrastructure and Energy Limited and on such loan, the assessee paid interest

Pragna Kirti Kedia, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 6(1), Air India

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

ITA 2350/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2021-22 Pragna Kirti Kedia Acit Cc(1), Air India, Mumbai C 302 Waterford Building Above, Navnit Motors Juhu Vs. Lane, Andheri West, Mumbai- 400058. Pan: Adwpk 9701 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Vinita Shah (Virtually Appear) Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal)-54, Mumbai. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 57

brief is that assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was made on 30.12.2023. The assessing officer noticed that assessee has shown income from other sources amounting to Rs.9,76,195/- after claiming deduction u/s 57 of the Act of Rs. 31,50,000/-. The assessing officer has disallowed ... that assessee has failed to provide documentary evidences to show that assessee has actually incurred expenditure of Rs. 31,50,000/- for earning income from other sources amounting to Rs. 9,76,195/-. 3. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ankur Agrawal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2308/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit 4(1)(1), Mumbai Ankur Agrawal 2401, 2402, Anmol Pride, Opp. Vs. Patel Auto Petrol Pump, Off Sv Road Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400062. Pan: Akopa 7201 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credits and treated the same under the head income from other sources. 3. Assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee after referring various decisions ... Term Capital Gain of Rs. 26,70,49,717/- which is claimed as exempted u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act 1961 and income from other sources of Rs. 1,51,879/-. Assessee’s AR Shri Pradeep Chaudhary filed details of bank accounts, details of investments, details of long term

Smt. Aruna Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, Ground No. 7 in A

ITA 3440/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ritu Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 254(2)

absence of any substantiating documents with regard to her claim of exempt agricultural income, the Assessing Officer treated the agricultural income disclosed as income from other sources and added the same to the total income of the assessee under the head “Income from Other sources”. 11. The assessee’s contention ... material, it should be deleted. 13. The ld. CIT(A), after considering the facts and submissions, confirmed the treatment of agricultural income as ‘income from other sources’. 14. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities. The ld AR submitted that

Smt. Aruna Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, Ground No. 7 in A

ITA 3439/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ritu Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 254(2)

Smt. Aruna Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, Ground No. 7 in A

ITA 3438/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ritu Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 254(2)

Menaben Bhikhaji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wad-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1006/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 54F

return of income filed. The assessee has shown the income from capital gain of Rs. 2,40,901/- and income from other sources of Rs. 1,29,429/-. After claiming deduction under chapter VIA of Rs. 10,000/- total income was declared at Rs. 3,60,330/-. The Assessing Officer

Menaben Bhikhaji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1005/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 54F

Lankapalli Pacs Ltd, Lankapalli Village vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 364/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.364/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 ) Lankapalli Pacs Ltd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 171, Lankapalli Village, Ward-1(1), Lankapalli Post, Vijayawada. Ghantasala Mandal-521131, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh-521131. Pan: Aaaal5410 (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri K. Siva Rama Kumar, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villurim, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 24/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri K. Siva Rama Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villurim, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

society. Further, the Ld. AO observed that any interest income arising from deposit / investment of funds in banks is in the nature of ‘income from other sources’ taxable U/s. 56 of the Act and cannot be categorized as ‘income from profits and gains of business’ of the assessee ... Accordingly, the Ld. AO brought to tax the entire interest income of the assessee of Rs. 22,77,972/- as income from other sources. Thus, the Ld. AO determined the assessed income of the assessee at Rs. 22,77,972/- and passed the assessment order U/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

Polba Skus Ltd, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward-24(2), Hooghly

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

ITA 939/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Promit Majumdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 80P

also been made on account of interest received allegedly from a bank other than a cooperative bank. This amount has been assessed as income from other sources, outside the purview of section 80P of the Act. It has been recorded by the Ld. AO on page 2 of his order