“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

Puneet Utreja, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 72(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 481/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Puneet Utreja, Vs Ito, B-1/6, Rana Pratap Bagh, Ward -1(5), New Delhi-110007. Gurugram. Pan-Abepu1160G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Sherry Goel, Adv. & Shri Raman Kumar Goel, Ar Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02.08.2024

Section 143(2)Section 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) to the assessee. The assessee is an individual and disclosed income from salary and income from other sources during the year under consideration. The AO noted that during the demonetization period, the assessee had deposited

Mr. Hasmukhlal Mavjibhai Thakkar( Prop. of M/S. Navkar Poteins), Deesa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wad-2, Palanpur

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

ITA 29/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 144Section 234ASection 270ASection 68

year under consideration, the assessee disclosed income under Assessment Year: 2017-18 Page 4 of 5 the head income from business and income from other sources. Since the assessee has not filed any details or any submissions, the Assessing Officer passed the Assessment Order under Section

Metro Heritage Pvt.Ltd., Vadodara vs. Dy.CIT., Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

The appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 616/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.616/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Metro Heritage Pvt.Ltd. The Dy.Cit 30-A Vishwas Colony बनाम/ Circle-2(1)(2) Beside Kesha Hospital Vadodara V/S. Alkapuri Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaecm 2161 M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ….. ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 21/06/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 19/12/2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Metro Heritage Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dy.Cit Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

evidence. As the assessee failed to furnish the details as asked for, the AO added interest of Rs.5,47,553/- under the head “income from other sources” and Rs.26,96,495/- as disallowance of depreciation. Additionally, the AO also asked the assessee to furnish the details of large share premium

Prakash Chand Saini, Sikandra vs. PCIT(Central)Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 479/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shailendra Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

shown as business income iii) Once the income offered during survey is disclosed as business income then the same cannot be treated as income from other sources. iv) In the view of the High Court the provisions of section 69 will not be applicable in such case. And the provisions ... when the assessee's sole business was that of running a hospital and it had no other source of income, treating the undisclosed income from other sources was not justified. (VII) Power of revision u/s 263 cannot be exercised to collect more taxes A survey operation under Section 133A

Laxmi Narayan Saini, Sikandra vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

ITA 478/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shailendra Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Mukesh Kumar Saini, Sikandara vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is in ITA no

ITA 477/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: or at the time of hearing.” 5. It is seen that the only grievance raised by the assessee is that PCIT erred in holding the order of the assessment as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Brief facts related to the issue are culled out are that in this case a Survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on 26.02.2019 at the business premises of the assessee firm M/s Nirankar Tiles and Sanitory 4

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shailendra Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Govindam Export, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur, Rajasthan

ITA 433/JPR/2024[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2024AY 2003-2004

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 260ASection 80H

addition of Rs. 69,638/- being 25% of alleged unverifiable purchases of Rs. 2,78,552/- (iv) directing to tax the same as income from other sources and (iv) holding that assessee paid 25% of doubtful purchases through undisclosed cash/undisclosed source. 4. The appellant prays for leave ... confirming the addition of Rs. 65,347/- being 25% of purchases of Rs. 2,61,387/- (iv) directing to tax the same as income from other sources and (iv) holding that assessee paid 25% of doubtful purchases through undisclosed cash/undisclosed source. 4 The appellant prays for leave

Govindam Export, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jpr, Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the results all the appeals filed by the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 429/JPR/2024[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2024AY 1998-99

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 260ASection 80H

Rohit Chatterji, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-35(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA

ITA 2707/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Based on the query raised by the AO that the assessee has not declared Rs. 6,21,652/- under the head "Income from Other Sources" and 100% of the rental income from "House Property" in Singapore amounting to Rs. 23,71,076/-, the assessee filed a revised return of income ... verification of the ITS details it was observed that the assessee has not offered Rs. 6,21,662/- under the head income from other sources and Rs. 23,71,076/- under the head House property. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee has submitted revised return of income filed

Rohit Chatterji, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, 35(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA

ITA 2706/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Anwar M. Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-20(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2669/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SRDR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

Rs.7,33,34,000/- [Rs.1388,34,000/- (-) Rs.6,50,00,000/] was made to the total income of the assessee under the head 'Income from Other Sources'.Subsequent to the receipt of valuation report from the DVO, a Anwar M. Shaikh rectification order u/s 154 was passed ... Rs.1,66,99,000/- [Rs.8,16,99,000/- (-) Rs.6,50,00,000/-] to the total income of the assessee under the head 'Income from Other Sources'. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal by upholding the addition

DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Wockhardt Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2633/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 194ASection 194HSection 2Section 201Section 201(1)Section 222Section 271C

purpose of the business. The nature of payment is such that it cannot be considered either under section 56 of the Act, i.e., "Income from other sources" or under section 57 of the Act prescribing deductions only in respect of "income from other sources". Inter alia, the conclusion is that ... since the nature of payment did not fall within the category of "income from other sources" as also cannot be allowed as payment of interest under section 36(1)(iii), therefore, it's true nature is nothing but added value of cost of purchase, hence no TDS was required

Late Chitra Chakola, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1605/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2011-12 Late Chitra Chakala Ito 24(1)(4) 102, Brighton Towers, 102, Brighton Towers, Lokhandwala Complex, Vs. Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (West), Andheri (West), Mumbai- 400053. Mumbai- 400053. Pan: Aabpc5032H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : Assessee By : Shri Satish Mody, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. R. Makwana- Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana- SR. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

members as a dividend, being shareholders, and, therefore, chargeable to income tax in the hands of the assessee under the head ‘income from other sources’. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the appellant filed appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who upheld the order

Pawanjeet Kaur Bhatia, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-45(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3611/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarpawanjeet Kaur Bhatia, Vs. Acit, Circle 45 (1), C – 9, Westend Colony, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 021. (Pan : Aacpk6902B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V. Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri M.P. Dwivedi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 Date Of Order : 01.08.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahyathis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-15, Delhi Dated 21.07.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Delhi Erred In : I. Dismissing Appeal Against Order Passed U/S 143 (3) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Without Providing Due & Adequate Opportunity Of Hearing; Ii. Confirming The Disallowance On Account Of Interest Expenses Paid On Secured Loans Used For The Purpose Of 2 Business In A Sum Of Rs.1,55,58,837/- Without Any Cogent Reasons.”

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Dwivedi, Sr. DR

Section 143

cogent reasons.” 3. In this case, Assessing Officer assessed the income as under :- (i) Income from house property - 1,53,97,466/- (ii) Income from other sources (interest) - 3,50,438/- (iii) Income from Profession & Business - 20,04,587/- Gross Income assessed - 1,37,43,317/- 4. Upon assessee

Harish Gandhi, Kaithal, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Kaithal, Haryana

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

ITA 812/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shivam Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 57

Thereafter, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to justify the claim of deduction under section 57 under the head “Income from Other Sources”. In response, the assessee submitted that the deduction has been wrongly claimed under the head “Income from Other Sources” and the same should ... filed replied on Income Tax Portal. Addition on account of deduction claimed u/s 57 of the I.T. Act, 1961 under the head 'income from other sources': During the year, the assessee has filed ITR-2 showing his rental income, salary and Interest income from Partnership firm and Interest Income

M/S Pagro Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ITO, W-2(3), Chandigarh

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1076/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253

accounting for the purposes of computation of income chargeable to Income Tax under the head profits and gains of business or profession or Income from other sources. No doubt this notification shall apply to A.Y. 2017-18 and subsequent years but for limited purpose an analogy briefly can be made

Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 218/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

same set of facts and in connection with the same investment in the land-cash component of which has been treated as 'income from other sources' in the hands of all the persons jointly making this investment, penalties have been levied under section 271AAA in the cases of Dr Anil