“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

Vikrant Rajendra Bidkar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(5), Pune

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

ITA 708/PUN/2024[A.Y.2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.708/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

making addition of Rs.93,37,684/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. The AO also added interest income of Rs.1,863/- as income from other sources. 3. Being aggrieved by the above addition, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal

Siliguri College, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Siliguri

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

ITA 489/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 144Section 144PSection 147Section 250Section 69A

That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming Rs. 48,95,014/- as interest income received from bank as income from other sources. 4. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred while confirming the view that the deposit in bank account amounting Rs. 60,56,590/- and the total interest income

Rajat Bhandari, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-62(3), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1332/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1332/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajat Bhandari..….…………………..……………………....………....Appellant 10B, Paramount, 25, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata -700019. [Pan: Afupb9602E] Vs. Ito, Ward-62(3), Kolkata….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishak Bansal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 14, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.24,19,646/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Miscellaneous Expenditure Claimed By The Assessee In The Return Of Income. 3. The Assessing Officer Disallowed The Aforesaid Amount On Account Of Miscellaneous Expenditure Observing That The Assessee Had Failed To

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 57

aforesaid expenditure was not miscellaneous expenditure, rather, it was relating to the business of the assessee. That even the receipts shown as ‘income from other sources’ were, in fact, sale proceeds of the assessee. However, the ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of supporting ... Loss) as NIL. Subsequently the case of the assessee is selected under CASS for Limited Scrutiny having reason of Scrutiny "as deduction against income from other sources" and accordingly issued notice u/s 143(2) on 13.08.2018 which were duly served and complied with. Thereafter the ld. A0 have issued notices

Sh. Moti Lal Jain, Alwar vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

ITA 645/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle1-(1), Mangalore vs. Dakshin Kannada Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Limited., Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 597/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri A Shiva Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT

Section 80Section 80P(2)(d)

event the assessee is not entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, and the interest income is assessed as “Income from Other Sources” assessee shall be entitled to deduction of cost of funds under section 57 of the Act. The relevant finding of the Tribunal ... prejudice to the above, we make it clear that if the interest earned by assessee from the banks is considered under the head "Income from other sources", relief to be granted to the assessee u/ s 57 of the Act in accordance with law. Accordingly, the issue is restored

Padubidri Co-Operative Agricultural Society, Udupi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Udupi

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

ITA 1147/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT

Section 250Section 57Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessee. As such, the assessee was not offered opportunity of furnishing the details for the cost incurred by it against the income from other sources. In view of the above, the ld. AR contended that as such, the assessee has not aggrieved by the order ... directed to examine whether assessee has incurred any expenditure for earning interest income, which is to be assessed under the head 'income from other sources'. If so, the same shall be allowed as deduction u/s 57 of the I.T. Act and net interest income will not be considered for calculating

Nandlal Tolani Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem Ward 2(1), Cumballa Hill, Mumbai

ITA 650/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 10Section 11Section 14Section 24Section 250

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

Sadhana Sahakari Patpedhi Limited, Palghar vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 55/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Unmesh J NarvekarFor Respondent: ShriDr. Kishore Dhule - CIT DR

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

interest is earned from the co-operative banks holding license issued by RBI same should be chargeable to tax under the head income from other sources. Therefore, assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. We on the merits already dealt with the issue in appeal of the assessee ... except Assessment Year 1995-1996) holding that such interest income earned by the assessee was taxable under the head 'Income from Other Sources' under Section 56 of the Act and was not 100% deductible from the Gross Total In come under Section 80P of the Act, is not applicable

Rajesh Ramesh Ranganekar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2157/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Biyani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

redevelopment. The contention of the revenue is that the impugned amount has not been offered to tax and therefore should be added as income from unexplained source. The ld. AR during the course of hearing submitted that the co-ordinate bench in the case of another member of the same ... assessee that the amount received towards hardship allowance is a capital receipt not subject to tax. The AO treated the said receipt as income from other sources by holding that – “7. From the above, it is clear, that the receipt by assessee of Rs 53,50,000/- (or right

Nandlal Tolani Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward-2(1), Mumbai

ITA 113/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Section 10Section 11Section 14Section 24Section 250

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

Mahavir Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-8(2), New Delhi

ITA 8602/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Singhla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anshul, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Delhi at a total income of Rs.7,28,540/- comprising of income from salary, income from house property, income from business, STCG and income from other sources. Besides this, he had also claimed Rs.60,96,900/- as exempt income u/s 10(38) on account of long term capital gains from

Sree Kanyaka Mutually Aided Co-Op Thrift Credit and Marketg. Society Limited, Hindupur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Hindupur

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

ITA 224/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri D. Shree Raksha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

received from IDBI Bank amounting to Rs.4,06,244/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee under the head income from other sources u/s.56 of the Act. The observation of the Ld. AO for such disallowance is covered under para ... 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 and the Society is not entitled to special deduction u/s 80P on such interest etc. 8. I also find support

The Erode City Municipal Corporation Emp Co-Op T& C Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward 1 (1), Erode

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 510/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.509 & 510/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-2019 & 2020-2021)

For Appellant: Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(6)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

income of Rs. 17,91,225/- from FDRs maintained with the EDCCB is not income from business but is to be treated as 'income from other sources' and is, therefore, not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). 6.7 In view of the above discussion, it is hereby held ... /80P(2)(d) on the interest income of Rs. 17,91,225/- and bringing this income to tax as 'income from other sources' is hereby upheld. All the 14 grounds of appeal are hereby dismissed’’. Now on further appeal, assessee is before us. 11. The ld.Counsel referred page

The Erode City Municipal Corporation Emp Co-Op T& C Limited, Erode vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Erode

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 509/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(6)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

ITA 547/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

filed by the assessee, taxable income has been declared at Rs. 14,09,150/- after declaring income from other sources at Rs 1,80,097/- without claiming loss of Rs 70,000/- from house property and after claiming deduction under u/s80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-. 5.2 During the course ... house property income and for concealing particulars of income to the extent of Rs 1,21,350/- on account of non declaration of income from other sources were initiated. Noticed u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act dated 23.08.2018 was issued and served upon

filed by the assessee, taxable income has been declared at Rs. 14,09,150/- after declaring income from other sources at Rs 1,80,097/-, without claiming loss of Rs 70,000/- from house property and after claiming deduction under u/s80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-. 5.2 During the course ... house property income and for concealing particulars of income to the extent of Rs 1,21,350/- on account of non declaration of income from other sources were initiated. Noticed u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act dated 23.08.2018 was issued and served upon

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

Telecom Employees Coop Housing Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 691/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chinmay Anand Jain, JCIT (DR)

Section 57Section 80P(2)(d)

prejudice to the above, we make it clear that if the interest earned by assessee from the banks is considered under the head “Income from other sources”, relief to be granted to the assessee u/s 57 of the Act in accordance with law. Accordingly, the issue is restored