← 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

The Taliparamba Govt Employees Co-Op Society Ltd, Kannur vs. The ITO, Ward 4, Kannur

Appeal stands allowed in above terms

ITA 341/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Gadora & Shri Amarjit Singhtaliparamba Govt. Employees The Income Tax Officer- 4 Co-Op. Society Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Taliparamba, Kannur 670141 Konnothumchal [Pan: Aalft8560F] Kannur 670006 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Bank/State Co-operative Bank, in the facts and circumstances of the case, do come within Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the income constitutes income from other sources and the only eligible deduction is covered by Section 80P(2)(d) viz. Interest or dividend derived by the assessee from its investments

Shri Binoy Rajen Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 926/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Amit Jhaveri, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

utilized for business purposes, the interest expenditure should also be accounted as business expenditure. However, the assessee has set off the same against income from other sources. The AO observed that the assessee has claimed interest expenditure of Rs. 23,77,284/-. Invoking provisions of Section

Sunil J. Jagtap, Income Tax Officer(Exemptions)-1(2), Mumbai vs. Centre for the Study of Social Change, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3941/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

making the following additions (i) Addition of Rs. 18,61,409/- on account of the notional rental income under the head income from other sources with regard to the premises utilized by LIHS (ii) Addition of Rs. 4,80,00,000/- on account of the alleged cessation of a liability ... liable to be computed as per the provisions of section 11 to 13. In other words, the addition proposed under the head income from other sources was not in consonance with the provisions of the Act. (iv) There is no provision contemplating an addition on account of the notional rental

Sunil J. Jagtap, Income Tax Officer (Exemptions)-1(2), Mumbai vs. Centre for the Study of Social Change, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3940/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

making the following additions (i) Addition of Rs. 18,61,409/- on account of the notional rental income under the head income from other sources with regard to the premises utilized by LIHS ITA NO. 3940 & 3941/Mum/2024 Centre for the Study of Social Change (ii) Addition ... liable to be computed as per the provisions of section 11 to 13. In other words, the addition proposed under the head income from other sources was not in consonance with the provisions of the Act. (iv) There is no provision contemplating an addition on account of the notional rental

Anju Chirania, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3158/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalanju Chirania, Vs. Ito, Ward –4(1)(3), 301, Sona Chambers, Room No. 637, 507/509, Jss Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Chira Bazar, Marine Lines, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Afcpc9073Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

major facts and submissions made on various dates and that the assesse is a regular investor in shares and securities and derives income from other sources, interest income and the dividend income. The purchase of shares are genuine through banking channels and the assessee has substantiated with various details referred ... assessees who belong to H group, AO did not accept the capital gains and treated the entire sale proceeds of the shares as income from undisclosed sources under s. 68-Not justified-Fact that the assessees in the group have purchased and sold shares of the same companies through

Smt. Manishadevi Vinodkumar Agarwal, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 23/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

Manishdevi Vinodkumar Agarwal vs. Pr.CIT 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual earning Income from Other Sources and Capital Gains. For the Asst. Year 2015-16, the assessee filed her Return of Income on 26.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.23

Jagannath Sambhaji Satav, Pune vs. ITO Ward 12(4), Pune

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

ITA 607/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

above grounds of appeal.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from “income from other sources”. The assessee is not filed regular return of income as per the provisions of section 139 of the Income

Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Nagpur vs. Shri Waman Mahadeorao Sarode, Nagpur

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

ITA 189/NAG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 147Section 148Section 250(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

consideration of ` 16,35,000, and market value of ` 1,76,90,000, needs to be 3 Shri Waman Mahadeorao Sarode treated as income from other sources under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). Accordingly, the assessee’s case was re– opened under ... Officer also sought explanation from the assessee as to why the difference n purchase value and FMV should not be treated as his income from Other Source of Income. In response, the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2016–17 on 24/06/2019, declaring income

Mohan Ballabh Sharma (Through Legal Heir Kanhaiya Lal Sharma) Heir, Baharatpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes with no orders as to costs

ITA 650/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia,CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 5(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

course of present appellate proceedings, the addition made by the AO treating the gift amount of Rs.24,66,380/- as income from other sources is upheld and the relevant ground is dismissed. 7.0) In the result, the appeal is dismissed.’’ 4 MOHAN BALLABH SHARMA THRU’ L/H SHRI KANHIYA LAL SHARMA

Nitin Kumar Bohra, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 340/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.T. Seshadri, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 234ASection 250Section 69

authorities have considered the income twice i.e., under the profits & gains of business or profession under Chapter IVD on the turnover and income from other sources u/s. 69A. Resultantly there is double taxation on the same income which is not permitted. Once the cash deposit out of the turnover

Murude Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-22(2)(1), Mumbai

The Appeal is allowed

ITA 901/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

irrespective of the fact that such interest income is taxable as ‘profits and gains of business’ or as ‘income from other sources’ since Section 80P(2)(d) uses the expression ‘any income’ and not ‘profits & gains of business’. 8. In view of the above, disallowance of deduction of INR.47

Jitendra Vallabhdas Sanghavi, Ghatkopar East vs. Commisioner of Income Tax Circle 27(1) Mumbai, Vashi Station Complex

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

ITA 2793/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Jitendra Vallabhdas Sanghavi, Commissioner Of Income 13, Marwadi Chawl, M.G. Road, Tax, Circle 27(1), ‘ Vs. Ghatkopar East, Mumbai Mumbai – 400077 (Pan : Azdps2873H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : None Revenue : Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

assessee and thus disallowed the interest expense of Rs.1,11,00,000/- as claimed by the assessee, which was added under the head “Income from Other Sources”. 3 Jitendra Vallabhdas Sanghavi, AY 2017-18 5. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), but failed to attend

Dtps Employees Co-Op Credit Society Limited Dahanu, Dahanu vs. Jurisdiction Ward 1, Palghar

ITA 1884/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

ITA No. 1884/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, MUMBAI MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Mansi Devang Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(20(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 1868/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Amarjit Singh & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 144Section 148Section 250

property of Rs.53.12,000/- is considered as income of the assessee being unexplained investment in the subject property under the head income from other sources. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act for failure to comply with notice and u/s. 271(1)(c) of Act for concealment

Vijay Kumar Bhan, Thane vs. ITO-Cir-42(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1799/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vijay Kumar Bhan Ito Circle 42(3)(1) Flat No. 602, Surbharlokpuram, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra E, Hiranandani Meadows, Thane (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 051 Thane – 400 610

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh R ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 2Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

where the learned Assessing Officer (ld. A.O. for short)/CPC vide intimation dated 14.06.2018 made an addition of Rs.3,99,000/- as ‘income from other sources’ which was not offered to tax by the assessee, though was reflecting in Form 26AS. 5. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before ... that the receipt of compensation for late possession of the flat received by the assessee from the builder would fall under the head ‘income from other sources’ as per section 56(2)(x) of the I. T. Act as being a ‘revenue receipt’. 7. Further aggrieved, the assessee

Income Tax Officer - 11(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tainwala Holdings Private Limited, Andheri East Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1066/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer-11(3)(1), Tainwala Holdings Private Mumbai Limited Vs 403, Ackruti Star, Central Road, Midc, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400093. Pan: Aaact 1542 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shreyash Shan, Advocate a/w Shri Kunal ShahFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Addl. CIT/ Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 35ASection 80G

Chittoda Investment & Trading Pvt. Ltd., (Supra): Admittedly, in this case also, the assessee itself was showing the interest income under the head income from other sources' in preceding years. We, therefore., uphold the order of the ld CIT(A) on the issue that the assessee has not carried

Gauttam Nipinbhai Nagarsheth, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 154/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.154/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Gautam Nipinbhai The Pr.Cit-3, बनाम/ Nagarsheth Ahmedabad V/S. D-37, Aaryaman Bungalows Nr.Railway Crossing Opp. Anand Niketan School Thaltej Shilaj, Thaltej Ahmedabad – 380 059 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakpn 7077 J (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Rajvaidya, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11-03-2022 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit”) Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Pcit, Wherein The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Has Been Set Aside On The Gautam Nipinbhai Nagarsheth Vs. The Pr.Cit-3 Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rajvaidya, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57Section 68

Rs.49,33,577/-. As explained by the AR the details of interest income and interest expense, as offered for taxation under the head income from other sources, are as given below: Sr Interest Received Rs. Rs. 1 Other Interest Received Poggenamp Nagarsheth 1625993 Powertronics Pvt. Ltd. POSCO Poggenamp Elec. Steel

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Shri. Satya Saibaba Construction, Latur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 626/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.626/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 69BSection 69C

with the business activity of the assessee company and should be brought to tax under the head “Business Income”, not under the head ‘Income from Other Sources”. The CIT(A) further held that the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case

Shri Pawan Kumar Ruia., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir- 30, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1197/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1197/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pawan Kumar Ruia…..…….…....…………….......…....………....Appellant 5, Sunny Park, Kolkata – 700019. [Pan: Acnpr3823K] Vs. Dcit, Circle-30, Kolkata.......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 23, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.09.2023 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 Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating Non-Credits Of Tds Of Rs.95,80,949/- Out Of Total Tds Claim Of Rs.2,18,82,526/-. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derived Salary Income & Income From Other Sources. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 17.07.2014 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.6,52,52,390/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Vide Order Dated 17.12.2016 At A Total Income Of Rs.6,86,66,708/-. The Assessee

Section 143(3)Section 250

Rs.2,18,82,526/-. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and derived salary income and income from other sources. The assessee filed its return of income on 17.07.2014 declaring a total income of Rs.6,52,52,390/-. The assessment was completed

Magendra Singh Rathore, Alwar vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 483/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargiya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 57

discharge the onus which lays upon it to show that incurring of expenditure has resulted in corresponding income taxable under the head income from other sources. In the absence of any live nexus between the expenditure and the corresponding income, the Revenue Authorities have rightly disallowed the claim of interest ... written submission and the same reads as under:- “Brief General Facts: The assessee, an individual derives income from real estate business and income from other sources. The Appellant e- filed its return of income (ROI) u/s139 for the subjected Assessment Years on dates and declaring total income as shown