← 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

Mangat Ram, Panipat vs. ITO Ward-1, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2564/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Mangat Ram, Vs Ito, Vikas Bhatta Co., Bko Kiwana, Ward -1, Panipat, Haryana-132103. Panipat. Pan-Agipr2718L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Navjot Ahuja, Adv. Respondent By Shri Siddharth B.S.Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.09.2024

Section 147Section 69A

turnover and closing stock. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A)NFAC erred in law & facts in sustaining the addition made u/s 69A when income from a source which is found to be recorded in books, has already been taxed; once as sales receipt and again as unexplained cash credit which ... Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) vide assessment order dated 23.03.2022, the AO made addition of INR 8,90,000/- as income from other sources. 4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, sustained the addition and dismissed the appeal

M/S. Vogue Fabrics, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Panipat

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2889/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahyash. Laliet Kumarita No. 2889/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Vogue Fabrics, Vs Dcit, C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Circle, Paipat, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, Panipat New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfv1872E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Yogesh Nair, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.09.2023

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Yogesh Nair, Sr. DR
Section 69A

facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.33,75,990/- by treating it as income from other sources instead of income from business and profession as claimed by the assessee. 7. That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case

Sh. Karam Chand, Mansa vs. Pr.CIT (Central), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 341/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69B

PCIT, (Central) Ludhiana and it was observed by him that the assessee had shown surrendered income as business income and income from other sources and tax was calculated at normal rate on the said income surrendered during the course of survey action but no explanation was given by the assessee ... assessee declared total income of Rs. 1,36,05,024/- wherein the business income was declared at Rs. 49,26,848/- and income from other sources was declared at Rs. 86,77,500/- and net income after claiming deduction was declared at Rs. 1,35,00,332/-. It was submitted

Subhash Ishvarbhai Patel, Gandhinagar vs. The ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru Present Jurisdiction the ACIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 754/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

equivalent to Rs. 4,86,257/- has been deducted in USA. The appellant had offered the income earned in USA to tax under Income from Other Sources and being eligible, claimed relief u/s. 90 of the Act as per DTAA between Government of India and USA and already taxed ... relief u/s.90/90A of the Act for Rs.4,86,257/- on income received from USA amounting to Rs.39,45,510/- ( which was disclosed as “income from other sources” in the return of income ). However, in the intimation received by the assessee u/s.143(1) of the Act, dated 24.12.2021, relief claimed u/s.90/90A

Nava Karnataka Souhard Credit Co-Operative Limited, Hospet vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Hosapete

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

ITA 1428/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Harsha J., A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and requires to be added to income of the assessee as “income from other sources” u/s 56 of the Act. Hence, the same was added to the income of the assessee. Accordingly, income of Rs.2 ... assessed under the head “income from other sources” u/s 56 of the Act, rejecting the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, being interest income received from member/Schedule Bank/District Co-operative bank. As the assessee has under reported its income penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act were

Praveen Halagappa Mariyappa(HUF), Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivamogga

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

ITA 1394/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Shree Raksha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

reply, a proposal was sent to assessee vide letter dated 15.8.2019 proposing to bring to tax Rs.2,39,54,128 under the head income from other sources. The assessee objected and submitted that the assessee tried to revise the return of income, but due to technical glitches, could not revise ... Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. v. CIT addition of Rs.2,39,54,128 treating it as income from other sources and total income declared in the return of income was accepted by the AO. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the First

Raghubir Singh Punia, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 30(8), New Delhi.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 2252/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2252/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 127Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

I.T.A.No.2252/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Indapur Taluka Prathamik Shikanchi Sahkari Patasanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(5) Pune, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1010/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1010/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Indapur Taluka Prathamik V The Income Tax Officer, Shikanchi Sahkari S Ward-14(5), Pune. Patasanstha Maryadit, At Post Indiapur, Near Kadam Hospital, Tal Indapur, Dist-Pune. Maharashtra – 413106. Pan: Aaaai1014K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 09/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/09/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 12.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Learned Assessing Officer Have Erred In In Rejecting Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(A)(I) For A Sum Of Rs.41,05,813 For Part Of The Profit Of Appellant Society Without Appreciating The Fact That Earning Of Interest Is An Integral Part Of Society’S Business & Appellant Prays For Allowing Such Deduction.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in treating the interest received from investment as income from other sources by rejecting appellant’s contention that said interest income is integral part of business activity and your appellant prays for cancellation of Assessing officer’s action

Ruturaj Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Pune vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Pune

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

ITA 1418/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1418/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ruturaj Cooperative Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Pune. Housing Society Ltd., S. No.692/A-2, Ruturaj Society, Satara Road, Pune- 411037. Pan : Aaatr1116L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.10.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Addition Of Interest Income On Deposits Of Rs13,23,708/- Of Jain Mandir Which Has Overriding Title In Favour Of Jain Mandir & Thus Does Not Partake The Character Of Income In The Hands Of The Appellant. 2. The Ld Clt(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That The Issue Is Decided By Cit (Appeal) 4 For Ay 2008-09 & 2010-11 In Favour Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)

counsel that total interest on bank deposit was only Rs.17,56,816/-, out of which Rs.4,33,108/- was shown under the head “Income from other sources” i.e. bank interest and balance interest income of 5 Rs.13,23,708/- was not included in total income being interest received on Deva

Ahsaan Qureshi, Nagpur vs. ACIT Circle-2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 323/NAG/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep JainFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 194HSection 201(1)Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40a

total agriculture income at ` 2,92,406, and added the balance amount of ` 5,68,322, to the total income of assessee as "Income from other sources". The learned CIT(A) allowed agricultural income to the extent of 90% of the total expenses claimed by the assessee

Vainganga Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Bhandara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhandara

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 305/NAG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

surplus funds of the Society and any interest income arising from deposit /investment of funds in Banks is in the nature of income from other sources are taxable and cannot be categorized as the income from the “profits and gains of business” of the assessee Society. Since the deduction under ... facilities to the members), the said deduction was not available to the interest income which is in the nature of “other income” or “income from other sources” of the assessee Society. 5. When the matter came up hearing before the first appellate authority, the learned CIT(A), following the judgment

Shyamkumar Chandulal Sugandh, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Nagpur

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

ITA 303/NAG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A

return of income on 26/11/2020, declaring net taxable income at ` 42,50,705, which includes income from house property, income from business and income from other sources and agricultural income at ` 2,09,937. The assessee earned commission @ 1% and for brokerage the assessee earned brokerage @ 1% only ... return of income, the assesse has shown income from business namely M/s. Shyamkumar Sugandh, and shown net profit at ` 20,93,207, and income from other sources at ` 15,72,749, which includes saving bank interest of ` 27,693, and interest from deposits with other concern

M/S. Neeri Co-Operative Credit Society, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 293/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Ms. Shrishti PandeFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

operative Credit Society ITA no.293/Nag./2023 section 28 of the Act? In our view, such interest income would come in the category of „income from other sources‟ hence, such interest income would be taxable under section 56 of the Act, as rightly held by the assessing officer…..” 19.1 However

Nimshaskiya Madhyanik Shaley Karamchari Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Wardha vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Wardha

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 156/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek KumarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(d)

Chapter VIA (80P) of the Act. The case of the Assessing Officer is that the interest income received by the assessee is from income from other sources not eligible for deduction under Chapter VIA (80P) of the Act. I find that similar issue came up for adjudication before the Tribunal ... taxed as business income under section 28 of the Act? In our view, such interest income would come in the category of „income from other sources‟ hence, such interest income would be taxable under section 56 of the Act, as rightly held by the assessing officer…..” 19.1 However

Sanjiv Prakashan, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 9/JPR/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2020-2021
For Appellant: Sh. Anil Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

Turab Ali Bohra, Bhilwara vs. ACIT Central Circle, Ajmer

ITA 704/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (V.C)For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Add. CIT
Section 131Section 132ASection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Nirav Shailendra Mody, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1039/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mohan TandonFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

only when the assessee is maintaining books of accounts and in the present case assessee is a partner in a firm and having income from other sources only. Thus, the additions confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC by applying the provision of section

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT. RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

ITA 1496/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2003-2004
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 40Section 80H

dies and moulds of the job workers / suppliers under the head ‘profits & gains of business as against assessee's declaring this income as income from ‘other sources and directing to allow the depreciation on these moulds and dies." 5. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Dividend Income (Rs. 12, 71, 59,800) and Income from Mutual Fund Units (Rs. 4, 39, 28,580) under the head Income from Other Sources as the said income was not exempt from tax in the year under consideration. The Assessee has not claimed any deduction for expenses against

Rajeev Kumar Goel, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 799/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 115BSection 132Section 69A

cash and stated that it is out of his regular business, however, the Assessing Officer was not convinced. Ultimately, he treated it as income from other sources. Against the assessment order so passed, assessee preferred an appeal before learned first appellate authority. However, the appeal was decided ex-parte confirming ... though the assessee had offered the income as business income, however, the Assessing Officer has treated it as undisclosed income under the head ‘income from other sources’. 5. In our view, in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given opportunity to furnish evidence and make submissions to establish

Rathinam Viswanathan, Trichy vs. ITO, Circle 1(1), Trichy

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

ITA 1639/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

Rs.38,10,400/- as against disallowance made by the AO at Rs.57,96,400/- and consequently, confirmed the addition under the head ‘income from other sources’. For this, assessee has raised various grounds which are argumentative, exhaustive and hence, need not be reproduced. 4. We have heard rival contentions ... same, agricultural income amounting to Rs.57,96,400/-is hereby disallowed and added back to income of the assessee under the head income from other sources. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 5. The CIT(A) after going through the historical data and the fact that the CIT while