← 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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 460/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2024AY 2016-17
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

Aditya Baheti, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 562/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Khandelwal, C.A ( V.H.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148

Income Tax Act, 1961 on sale of shares of M/s Tarbo Tech Ltd. The assessment was completed by treating the LTCG as income from other sources and also commission for acquiring accommodation entry. The Total Income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.38,73,970/-. 4. Aggrieved, from the said

The Academy of General Education Chikmagalur, Chikmagalur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chikmagalur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1299/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri A. Shiva Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 57

filed return of income declaring loss of Rs.31,43,615. The case was selected for limited scrutiny of substantial deduction under the head income from other sources u/s. 57. Statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The AO granted various opportunities, but the assessee did not respond. Finally a physical

ACIT Circle 4.3.1, Mumbai vs. Just Dial Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

ITA 486/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 250

cannot be disputed that section 56(2)(vii) of the Act is a deeming provision and deals with taxation under the head “income from other sources” in case immovable property or any property other than immovable property is received without consideration or for a consideration which is less than stamp

ACIT Circle 4.3.1, Mumbai vs. Just Dial Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 485/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SANDEEP SINGH

ACIT Circle 4.3.1, Mumbai vs. Just Dial Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 484/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SANDEEP SINGH

ACIT Circle 4.3.1, Mumbai vs. Just Dial Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

ITA 483/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 250

cannot be disputed that section 56(2)(vii) of the Act is a deeming provision and deals with taxation under the head “income from other sources” in case immovable property or any property other than immovable property is received without consideration or for a consideration which is less than stamp

Export Import Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2918/MUM/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2019-20 Export Import Bank Of India Pcit, Mumbai-3, Mumbai World Trade Centre Complex, Vs Centre One Building, Floor 21, Colaba S.O., Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aaace 2769 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 155(18)Section 263Section 90

ALTERNATE: 3. Deduction of Health and Education Cess of Rs.l,76,53,204/- and Rs.40,63,806/- in computing "income from business" and "Income from other sources" respectively: In the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in lawN, the Ld. PCIT erred in holding that the Order ... allowing the deduction of health and education cess of Rs.1,76,53,204/- and Rs.40,63,806/- in computing "income from business'" and "Income from other sources" respectively as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue ignoring the fact that in terms of applicable provisions of Section

Just Dial Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

ITA 254/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 250

cannot be disputed that section 56(2)(vii) of the Act is a deeming provision and deals with taxation under the head “income from other sources” in case immovable property or any property other than immovable property is received without consideration or for a consideration which is less than stamp

Abbs Gulam Rasool Maknojia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1414/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

Departmental inside portal. However, the assessee has not offered the stamp duty valuation to tax, in his return of income under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’ as per Section 56(2)(x) of the Act and therefore the return of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS ... value in the year 2012 minus 63,00,000/- as consideration amount shown by the assessee} should be brought to tax under head ‘Income from Other Sources’ as per Section 56(2)(x) of the Act and the Assessee’s share is 27.78% of Rs.1,33,22,000/- which comes

Monica Parmanand Mirchandani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1082/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: ShriMahavir AtalFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

teacher by profession and had filed her return of income for the year under consideration, declaring total income at Rs.2,77,800/- as ‘income from other sources’. The assessee’s case was reopened vide notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2019 and the assessee had filed her return ... society in seven installments. The ld. AR iterated that the ld. A.O. treated the hardship compensation received by the assessee as ‘income from other sources’ and made the impugned addition. The ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions where some of which are in the case of the fellow

Monica Parmanand Mirchandani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1081/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: ShriMahavir AtalFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

teacher by profession and had filed her return of income for the year under consideration, declaring total income at Rs.2,77,800/- as ‘income from other sources’. The assessee’s case was reopened vide notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2019 and the assessee had filed her return ... society in seven installments. The ld. AR iterated that the ld. A.O. treated the hardship compensation received by the assessee as ‘income from other sources’ and made the impugned addition. The ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions where some of which are in the case of the fellow

Income Tax Officer 23 2 1 Mumbai, Piramal Chambers Lalbaug Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Board of Technichal Education, Bandra East, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4243/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 10(46)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(31)Section 250Section 4

then passed the assessment order dated 27.12.2017, declaring total income at Rs.38,31,22,973/- as business income and income from other sources, on the ground that the assessee board is not covered under Article 289(1) of the Constitution where it has been held that the activities ... have paid such amount. The Assessing Officer taxed the receipt of assessee Board as Business Income and Interest on Fixed Deposits as Income from Other Sources as we have referred above. 24. Before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed detailed submission explaining entire scheme of the State Act under

Income Tax Officer 23(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education, Bandra East, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4229/MUM/2023[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 10(46)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(31)Section 250Section 4

then passed the assessment order dated 27.12.2017, declaring total income at Rs.38,31,22,973/- as business income and income from other sources, on the ground that the assessee board is not covered under Article 289(1) of the Constitution where it has been held that the activities ... have paid such amount. The Assessing Officer taxed the receipt of assessee Board as Business Income and Interest on Fixed Deposits as Income from Other Sources as we have referred above. 24. Before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed detailed submission explaining entire scheme of the State Act under

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Mumbai vs. State Bank of India Employees M.S. Patel Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3995/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Hemant ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Smiti Samant, CIT, DR
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(V)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 8O

section 194A(3)(V) of the Act which excludes the Cooperative Banks from the definition of "Cooperative Society" and requiring them to deduct income tax at source under Section 194A of the Act that also makes the legislative intent clear that the Co-operative Banks are not that specie ... investments in short term deposits and securities out of surplus funds, not immediately required for business activity, is not business income but income from other sources u/s. 56 of the Income tax Act, 1961 and the Society is not entitled to special deduction u/s. 80P on such interest etc. earned

Sushila Bhaurao Deshmukh, Amravati vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: ShriK.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54BSection 54E

22/03/2017; ix) Detailed Note on the sources of funds for the purchase of property along with bank statement; x) Statement of particulars regarding income from other sources, capital gain and deductions claimed u/s 80C; xi) Reply to ITO, Ward–2, Amravati dated 20/09/2018; xii) Copy of bank statements and working

ACIT., Circle-1(1), Tirupati vs. Ponnambalam Krishnan, Chittoor

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 655/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G, Accountnat Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.655/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ponnambalam Krishnan, Tax, Circle 1(1), Tirupati. Vs. Ekjambarakuppam, Chittoor, A.P. Pan : Bedpk5641B (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.11/Hyd/2024 (Assessment Year:2017-18) (By Assessee) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala,Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 10/09/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की रीख/Pronouncement: 20/09/2024

For Appellant: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala,SR-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 40Section 68

claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.53,393/-. e) Addition of Rs 15,28,700 by changing the head of agriculture income as income from other sources. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and assailed the order ... affirm the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A). 23. Coming to the next ground i.e. treatment of agriculture income as income from other sources by the Assessing Officer. We are of the view that this issue requires fresh adjudication at the end of Assessing Officer because

The Nimar Educational Society, Khandwa vs. The CIT (Exemption), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 343/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 The Nimar Educational Cit(Exemption) , Society, Bhopal बनाम/ Harsud Road, Civil Lines, East Nimar, Vs. Khandwa (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabtt1409K Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

these documents, Ld. AR claimed that the assessee has declared a net income of Rs. 1,16,505/- chargeable under the head “Income from Other Sources” without claiming any exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad). 6. With above contentions, Ld. AR strongly prayed that the revision-order passed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Tiruppur vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing P Ltd, Tiruppur, Tamilnadu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 326/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 28

income chargeable 33 I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/19, 326 & 1014/Chny/24, 706, 768,358/Chny/22 & 94 & 1348Chny/23 under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” or “income from other sources”. In case of any conflict between the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the ICDS, the provisions of the Act shall prevail

Periyannan Santhamoorthy, Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward 1, Dharmapuri

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

ITA 215/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.215/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Periyannan Santhamoorthy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 109/2, Pallapatti Village & Post, Ward 1, Nettadahalli, B.O, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri 636 803. [Pan:Aypps 4031C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. N.V. Krishnan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

towards unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act being cash deposits in bank account and an addition of Rs.30,713/- income from other sources being interest received. 3. Further, the appellant filed the appeal against the order under section 147 r.w. section 144 read with section 144B