← 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

Kalthia Infracon Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 140/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.140/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Kalthia Infra-Con Pvt.Ltd. The Ito बनाम/ 193 “Kalthia House” Ward-2(1)(2) V/S. Satya Grah Chavni Ahmedabad Opp. Iscon Mall, S.G.Highway Ahmedabad – 380 015 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaeck 3940 N अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.J. Shah, Ar & Shri Rushin Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80Section 801A

interest income from FDRs could not be treated as "profits derived from" the infrastructure development business. The AO classified the interest income as "income from other sources" under Section 56 of the Act, holding that it was not directly related to the assessee's core business activities of developing ... which held that interest earned on deposits placed temporarily cannot be treated as business income but should be classified as income from other sources. Based on this precedent, the AO concluded that the interest income lacked the La;tjoa Omfracpm {vt/:td/ Asst. Year : 2016-17 requisite nexus with

Kuppusamy Vadivel Selvakumar, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward-4, Cuddalore

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

ITA 2133/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2133/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kuppusamy Vadivel Selvakumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1197/A Kumbakonam Road, Ward 4, Keezhakollai Marungur, Cuddalore, Cuddalore. Tamil Nadu 607 103. [Pan:Enrps9693P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 41 Days. On Perusal Of The Affidavit Along With Medical Certificate, Submissions Of The Ld. Ar & Ld. Dr, We Find The Reasons Explained By The Assessee Are 2

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69A

amount of ₹.12,25,000/- under section 69A of the Act and also an amount of ₹.10,26,104/- under the head “income from other sources” vide order dated 29.11.2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Act. 5. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). According ... assessee. 8. After hearing both the parties, we find the Assessing Officer made addition under section 69A of the Act and income from other sources, which requires assistance; undoubtedly, there was no assistance from the assessee. Admittedly, as rightly pointed out by the ld. DR, the assessee could not avail