← 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

Durairaj Murugesan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(1), Chennai

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

ITA 941/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.941/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 Shri Durairaj Murugesan, The Income Tax Officer, C87, Periyar Vegetable Market, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 8(1), Koyambedu, Chennai. Chennai – 600 092. Pan: Avfpm 1925N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca ""यथ"क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1061865865 (1) Dated 01.03.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 8(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 U/S.144 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 29.12.2019. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A)-Nfac Confirming The Action Of Ao In Treating The Cash Deposits Made During Demonetization Period In Specified Bank Notes(Sbns) Amounting To Rs.69,46,130/- As Unexplained Credit U/S.69A Of The Act & Taxing The Same U/S.115Bbe Of The Act.

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

fact, the CIT(A) has accepted the arguments of the assessee and also directed the AO to assess cash deposits under the head income from other sources, by considering explanation offered by the assessee. But, the only objection of the AO and CIT(A) was that the assessee has accepted

Kuppusamy Meiyappan, Salem vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 647/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.647/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kuppusamy Meiyappan, The Dy. Commissioner Of 2/263, Perumal Koil Medu Street, Vs. Income Tax, No.8, Seelanaickanpatty, Circle-1(1), Salem – 636 201. Salem. [Pan: Alppm 0517Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथF की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate HiथF की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059373357(1), Dated 04.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2017-18 U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 29.12.2019. :- 2 -: 2. There Is A Delay Of 8 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

treated as unexplained income of the assessee u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE oftheT ActThe same is brought to tax for A.Y.2017-18 under the head Income from other sources Since the income determined includes income in the nature referred to in section 69A, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act separately. (Addition ... balance sum of Rs.82,48,840/-(1,70,72,500-88,23,659) is brought to tax for A.Y.2017-18 under the head "Income from other sources". Since the determined income includes income in reference to section 69A, penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC of the Income-tax Act is initiated separately

Valuable Technologies Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tac (Appeals)-11 Pune, Pune

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

ITA 645/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Valuable Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Cit(A)-11, Dcit Central Circle 1 Plot No. 53/1 Media Info Park, Road, Thane, Ashok It Park 6Th Floor, No.7, Midc, Near Akruti Trade Vs. Ward No. -16, Wagle Industrial Centre, Andheri (East), Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Mumbai-400093. Pan No. Aaccv 2732 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Jagdish Shetty
Section 154Section 43BSection 72(1)Section 74

reported under capital gain and losses to the income reported under capital gain and losses to the income reported under capital gain and income from other sources were made. Thereafter, the Assessing income from other sources were made. Thereafter, the Assessing income from other sources were made. Thereafter, the Assessing ... business loss of Rs. 15,72,530/- against the capital gains income against the capital gains income or income from other sources, of t or income from other sources, of the assessment year under he assessment year under consideration. The assessing officer is directed accordingly.” consideration. The assessing officer