← 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

Anil Dugal, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 62(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 131/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2017-18 Sh. Anil Dugal, Vs. Dcit, Circle 62(1), A-22, Rao Tula Ram Marg, New Delhi – 110 002 Westend Colony, New Delhi – 110 021 (Pan: Aaapd2869E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Singhvi, CA & Sh. RajatFor Respondent: Ms. Anusha Khurana, CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 68

already credited in Profit and Loss Account and included in Total Income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has considered the same as income from other sources on basis of assumptions and presumptions without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. This imaginary addition

DCIT, Gurugram vs. Rajesh Kumar, Sonepat

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

ITA 82/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 41(1)Section 43BSection 68

respect of the unit eligible for deduction under section 10A and brought to tax the interest income mentioned above as "Income from other sources". The appeal against the order at the instance of the assessee to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not successful, though the point of reopening

Rajesh Kumar, Sonepat vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Gurgaon

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

ITA 61/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 41(1)Section 43BSection 68

respect of the unit eligible for deduction under section 10A and brought to tax the interest income mentioned above as "Income from other sources". The appeal against the order at the instance of the assessee to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not successful, though the point of reopening

Santhimadam Agrofarm Trust, Kochi vs. The ACIT Central Circle 2, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 223/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

received from Kristal Infrastructure Ltd was for procuring land and the same is taxable under the head business and not under the head Income from other sources. The assessee also submitted that this is a liability and therefore the same cannot be taken as income. Also submitted that no addition ... could be made as income from other sources by virtue of judgement of the apex court in Abhisar Buildwell P Ltd as no incriminating material was found and seized. 12. We considered the arguments and the written arguments filed by the assessee and we are in full agreement with

Santhimadam Agrofarm Trust, Kochi vs. The ACIT Central Circle 2, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 222/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

received from Kristal Infrastructure Ltd was for procuring land and the same is taxable under the head business and not under the head Income from other sources. The assessee also submitted that this is a liability and therefore the same cannot be taken as income. Also submitted that no addition ... could be made as income from other sources by virtue of judgement of the apex court in Abhisar Buildwell P Ltd as no incriminating material was found and seized. 12. We considered the arguments and the written arguments filed by the assessee and we are in full agreement with

Santhimadam Agrofarm Trust, Kochi vs. The ACIT Central Circle 2, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 221/COCH/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

received from Kristal Infrastructure Ltd was for procuring land and the same is taxable under the head business and not under the head Income from other sources. The assessee also submitted that this is a liability and therefore the same cannot be taken as income. Also submitted that no addition ... could be made as income from other sources by virtue of judgement of the apex court in Abhisar Buildwell P Ltd as no incriminating material was found and seized. 12. We considered the arguments and the written arguments filed by the assessee and we are in full agreement with

Santhimadam Agrofarm Trust, Kochi vs. The ACIT Central Circle 2, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 220/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

received from Kristal Infrastructure Ltd was for procuring land and the same is taxable under the head business and not under the head Income from other sources. The assessee also submitted that this is a liability and therefore the same cannot be taken as income. Also submitted that no addition ... could be made as income from other sources by virtue of judgement of the apex court in Abhisar Buildwell P Ltd as no incriminating material was found and seized. 12. We considered the arguments and the written arguments filed by the assessee and we are in full agreement with

Mr. Shankaramurthy C, Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davangere

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 680/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. ShreeRaksha, D, Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

details. Therefore AO disallowed 25% of agricultural expenses claimed by the assessee resulting additional income of Rs.5,83,750 and added it as income from other sources and completed the assessment. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals). 3. During the appellate proceedings ... expenses claimed by the assessee is disallowed, the agricultural income will be increased only. However the AO has treated it as income from other sources. She further submitted that the Page 4 of 5 payment was made towards purchase of fertilisers from the local vendors and towards labourers which

Metal Tube and Rolling Mills, Mumbai vs. Income Tax 24(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeals no

ITA 3116/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2014-15
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

treated interest of Rs. 5,26,497/- received on FDR and interest of Rs. 5,03,918/ received on loans and advances as income from other sources and not part of business income. Learned CIT(A) confirmed addition of Rs. 5,26,497/- but directed AO to give credit ... treat the entire interest of Rs. 14,30,009/- (5,26,497/- + 9,03,512/-) as interest income earned under the head income from other sources. - 3. The appellant assessee has approached this tribunal on the following grounds: #### *" 1. Disallowance of Rs. 4,07,597/- u/s 69C. pertaining

Metal Tube and Rolling Milss, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 24(2)(1), Miumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals no

ITA 3115/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

treated interest of Rs. 5,26,497/- received on FDR and interest of Rs. 5,03,918/- received on loans and advances as income from other sources and not part of business income. Learned CIT(A) confirmed addition of Rs. 5,26,497/- but directed AO to give credit ... treat the entire interest of Rs. 14,30,009/- (5,26,497/- + 9,03,512/-) as interest income earned under the head income from other sources. 3. The appellant assessee has approached this tribunal on the following grounds: “ 1. Disallowance of Rs. 4,07,597/- u/s 69C. pertaining

Metal Tube and Rolling Mills, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 24(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals no

ITA 3114/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2011-12
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

treated interest of Rs. 5,26,497/- received on FDR and interest of Rs. 5,03,918/- received on loans and advances as income from other sources and not part of business income. Learned CIT(A) confirmed addition of Rs. 5,26,497/- but directed AO to give credit ... treat the entire interest of Rs. 14,30,009/- (5,26,497/- + 9,03,512/-) as interest income earned under the head income from other sources. 3. The appellant assessee has approached this tribunal on the following grounds: ITA no.3115,3114,3116/MUM/2024 Metal Tube and Rolling Mills “ 1, Disallowance

Saranga Anil Aggarwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1654/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT/DR
Section 68

added to the total income of the assessee. Further, during the course of assessment, the assessing officer noticed that assessee has shown income from other sources of Rs 26,354/- in the ITR. During the course of assessment, the AO asked the assessee to explain how the gross interest shown ... Therefore, the difference of Rs. 1,72,51,247/- (Rs. 1,72,77,601 – Rs. 26,354) was considered as income from other sources and added to the total income of the assessee. 8. Further, on perusal of ITR filed by the assessee, the AO observed that

The W.B. State Co-Op Agri and Rural Development Bank Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 32, Kolkata

ITA 1434/KOL/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Palash Chattapadhya, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Anup Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

charges, Stipend & Fooding Charges on Training: Rs.19,04,318 and Building Maintenance Charges recovered from tenants: Rs.13,07,047 by considering this as Income from other Sources. 3 Appeal filed with Ld. Claim for 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction CIT(A) reiterated 4. The Ld. CIT(A) Decision ... additional ground. 11. The Id. AR has prayed before the Tribunal that in case the aforesaid incomes if treated under the head income from other sources then the corresponding expenditure should be allowed against these incomes. It is a well settled law that the net income should be brought

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Nisha Jain, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

ITA 378/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 131

settled law now: 8.4.1 Kindly refer CIT v/s P.V. Bhoopathy (2006) 205 CTR 495 (Mad) held: “Appeal (High Court)—Substantial question of law—Income from undisclosed sources—AO did not accept various sources of income explained by the assessee and made additions under ss. 68 and 69 in respect ... order noted as under: “Further, it is also submitted that the assessee has admitted the said amount as income from undisclosed sources and surrendered the same amount for taxation during the survey action. Considering the facts of the case, the cash deposited during demonetization period

Mashreq Communications Limited, Sona Villa Jussa Wala Wadi vs. Income Tax Officer 16(1)(3), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

ITA 4343/MUM/2023[2014 -15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrisandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 154

Page | 1 ITA No.4343/M/2023 AY: 2014-15 Mashreque Communications Ltd Versus Income tax officer - 16 (1) (3), Mumbai IN THE

Sheela Daniel, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(4), Mumbai, Bkc Bandra (East)

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 2675/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin M Chavan (SRDR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234Section 250oSection 271Section 56(2)(v)

Section 56(2)(v) of the Act any sum of money exceeding a specified amount received without consideration willbe taxed as income from other sources. The amendment was effected w.e.f 01.10.2009. It is not a case of the assessee that he has received any immovable property. Moreover, even

Parekh Market Co-Op. Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 27(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2409/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2024AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri. Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran Unavekar
Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 81

deduction of Rs. 93,527/- under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holding that interest income from co-operative Society was Income from other sources on which deduction under section 80P was not admissible. 3. On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, learned

Bhim Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 255/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(37)Section 28Section 34Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57Section 69ASection 80CSection 80D

part of learned CIT(A) to treat the said interest of Rs.1,05,75,310/- granted U/s 28 of land Acquisition Act as income from other sources U/S 56 of the Act and allow deduction U/S 57 of the Act i.e. 50% of the said amount and not allowing ... held that the interest was received on enhanced compensation on acquisition of land which is taxable under the head ‘income from other sources’ under section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s 145A(b) but directed the Assessing Officer to recomputed the income of Rs. 1,05,75,310/- after allowing a deduction

Faiyaj, Noida vs. Income Tax Officer, Noida

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

ITA 2093/DEL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyafaiyaj, Vs. Ito, C/O Sanjeev Anand & Associates, Noida. 136, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad – 201 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aclpf2308P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 Date Of Order : 02.08.2024 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 02.04.2024 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Ld. Assessing Officer In Framing The Impugned Reassessment Order U/S 147/144 & That Too Without Assuming Jurisdiction As Per Law & Without Complying With The Mandatory Conditions U/S 147 To 151 As Envisaged Under The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 144Section 147

this case, Assessing Officer in an order passed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 made addition of income from other sources amounting to Rs.25,11,994/-. 4. Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) noted that there was 205 days delay. Ld. CIT (A) did not condone

Manju Chaudhary, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 29(7), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3308/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Manju Chaudhary, Vs Ito, C 3/19, Phase-Iii, Aya Nagar Extn., Ward -29(7), Delhi-110030. Delhi. Pan-Aiipc1064C Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02.08.2024

Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2012