← 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

Jankalyan Multistate Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Solapur Maharashtra vs. ITO, Ward One (One)

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

ITA 561/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.561/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jankalyan Multistate Co- Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Solapur. Operative Credit Society Limited, 940, Jagjivandas Complex, Near Garud Bangal Sadar Bazar, Solapur - 413003. Pan : Aabaj3074H Appellant Respondent Assessee By None (Written Submission Filed) : Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of Case & In Law, Ao & Cit(A), Niac Was Correct In Disallowing The Deduction When The Income Is Part Of Business Of Assessee & Eligible For Deduction.

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 234Section 4Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

business of the assessee credit cooperative society which is deductible u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act or will be an income from other sources arising as interest income on deposit with other cooperative banks/cooperative societies, which is deductible

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Pune vs. Suresh Kumar Lakhotia, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Partly Allowed

ITA 24/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2018-19 Vs Suresh Kumar Lakhotia, The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), 3A/3B, Archies Court Pune. Shankersheth Road, Ghorpade Peth, Pune – 411042. Pune – 411042. Pan: Aazpl4337L Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Devdatta Mainkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/09/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 09.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Accepting The Assessee'S Contention That The Additional Capital Introduced In Ay 2018- 19 Represents Accumulated Suresh Kumar Lakhotia [R]

Section 250Section 68o

income includes salary from group companies, business income from proprietary concern 'Shree Ram Minerals', house property income, capital gains and income from other sources. 2. In the return of income, the Appellant merged personal balance sheet with balance sheet of proprietary concern, which resulted in adding opening capital

Go Fashion (India) Limited, Nungambakkam, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-1, Nungambakkam Chennai

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

ITA 939/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.939/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Go Fashion (India) Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of 4 (Old 144), Sathak Center, Vs. Income Tax, Fifth Floor, Chennai-1. Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam S.O, Nungabakkam, Chennai-600034. [Pan: Aadcg 9557C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Ramachandran, Fca Hiथ" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-1 [Hereinafter “Pcit”] Dated 29.02.2024 Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramachandran, FCA
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

made complete verification and inquiry in respect of consideration received by the assessee in excess of fair market value to be charged as income from other sources u/s. 56(2) (viib) of the Act and passed order without application of mind . 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee