← 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

Amit Sajjan Kumar Gupta, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1378/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalamitsajjankumargupta, Dcit-8(2)(1), 110, Ashirwad, Roomno.624, बनाम/ Ahmedabad Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Carnac Bunder, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400009. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abrpg2852N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravikant Pathak.Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 08/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/10/2024 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (A) Nfac, Erred In Confirming Order Made U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Is Bad In Law, Ultra Vires & Without Appreciating The Facts, Submission & Evidences In The Proper Perspective, Without Providing Copies Of Material Used Against The Appellant & Without Providing Opportunity Of Cross Examination, Is Liable To Be Annulled.

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak.ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

steel pipes and also investor in shares and securities. The assesse derives income from salary, income from business, income from capital gains and income from other sources. The assesse has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2015-16 on 31.10.2015 disclosing a total income of Rs.4 ... Limited along with other shares and securities held by the assesse. The assesse is a regular investor in shares and securities and derives income from other sources, interest income and the dividend income. The Ld. AR mentioned that no independent enquiry was conducted by the revenue. The Ld.AR substantiated

Ramesh Chander Mahajan, Panchkula vs. CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 235/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.235/Chd/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ramesh Chander Mahajan, बनाम The Ito, Flat No. 803, Tower 11A. Ward-3, Suncity Parikrama, Panchkula Sector 20, Panchkula 134109 "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Acppm6667 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By :Sh. T.N. Singla, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 उदघोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024 आदेश/Order Per A.D. Jain: This Is Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2017-18, Filed Against The Addition Of Rs. 33,32,734/- Made On Account Of Difference In Income From Other Sources As Shown In The Income Tax Return & The Tax Audit Report In Form No. 26As, Which Addition Has Been Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Sh. T.N. Singla, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 194ASection 57

assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2017-18, filed against the addition of Rs. 33,32,734/- made on account of difference in Income from other Sources as shown in the Income Tax Return and the Tax Audit Report in Form No. 26AS, which addition has been confirmed ... appeal is condoned. 4. Regarding the merits of the case, the CPC made an adjustment of Rs. 33,32,734/- under the head ‘Income from other Sources’, the quantum covered u/s 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and reflected in Form No. 26AS. This amount