“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

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Ramaraja Kshatriya Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 2024/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Anil TopiwalaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

despite the fact that Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the interest on deposits were not business income but the income from other sources and, therefore, the deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) is also not allowed in respect of interest earned from deposits in co operative banks." 2) “Whether

Dilip Amichand Mehta, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee are partially allowed

ITA 1855/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Dilip Amichand Mehta, Assistant Commissioner Of 16/17/18, Sonal Apartment, Income Tax- Circle 27(1), Lbs Road, Ghatkoper West, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai – 400086

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

following: Particulars Amount in Rs. Salaries 750000 Profit and gains from business & profession 1608152 (Taxable Profit and gains from business & profession 6831111 (Exempt) Income from Other Source (Less Rs. 12,000/-) 4487442 Total Income earned 13676705 3 Dilip Amichand Mehta, AY 2017-18 4.1. Against the income from other sources

Nand Krishna Kumar Goswami, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 518/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 31-01-2024 In Din & Order No.

For Appellant: None(Adjournment Application filed)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

partner in partnership firm M/s. Taj Builders and Taj Enterprises. The assessee stated before the AO that the asessee has not derived any income from other sources . The A.O. observed on the basis of SFT filed by the banks that the assessee has made huge cash deposit of Specified Bank

M/S. Bee Co-Op Society Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 888/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Madhukar Hegde, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 57Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(i)

reproduced as under: “it is directed that any interest earned by the assessee from commercial banks may be considered. under the head income from other sources by granting benefit available to the assessee u/s 57 of the Act.” 8.1 In view of the above, we hold that the assessee

Urvashi Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Santacruz vs. Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chamber Building

ITA 1235/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Surendra TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma

Section 143(1)Section 2(19)Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

irrespective of the fact that such interest income is taxable as ‘profits and gains of business’ or as 3 Assessment Year 2022-23 ‘income from other sources’ since Section 80P(2)(d) uses the expression ‘any income’ and not ‘profits & gains of business’. 4.4. In view of the above, disallowance

Sheetal Saini, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 72(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4141/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Us, The Only Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Gains Received On Sale Of Listed Company Shares By The Assessee In The Sum Of Rs 50,49,950/- Is To Be Treated As Business Income Or Income From Other Sources In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case. 3. We Have Heard The Rival Submissions & Perused The Materials Available On Record. The Assessee Is An Individual & Had Filed Her Return Of Income For The Asst Year 2014-15 On 28.3.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs 6,76,086/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Sold Shares Of Listed Company & Declared Capital Gains & Claimed Exemption U/S 10(38) Of The Act In The Return Of Income. The Assessee Thought It Fit To Revise Its Return Of Income By Treating The Gains Arising On Sale Of Shares As Business Income Instead Of Offering Capital Gains & Claim

Section 10(38)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

listed company shares by the assessee in the sum of Rs 50,49,950/- is to be treated as business income or income from other sources in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record

Sanjay Sawhney, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4051/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

material available on record. The assessee is an individual earning income from salary under ‘income from salary’ and commission & interest under the head ‘income from other sources’. The assessee is employed with Yamuna Calcium Private Limited. The return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed

Shri Girishbhai Vadilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 332/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 57

anything to the contrary contained in section 57, the following amounts shall not be deductible in computing the income chargeable under the head "Income from other sources", namely- ………… (2) The provisions of section 40-A shall, so far as may be, apply in computing the income chargeable under the head ... Income from other sources" as they apply in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". (emphasis supplied) From the bare reading of this provision, it is evident that Section 58 of the Act has an overriding effect on the deduction as admissible under

Shri Girishbhai Vadilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 331/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 57

Shri Girishbhai Vadilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 330/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 57

Singhal Builders, Bharatpur vs. ACIT, Circle, Bharatpur

12. In view of above findings, the only argument raised on behalf of the

ITA 285/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT) (V.C)

Section 244A

made by the Assessing Officer by observing that the interest on amount of refund was to be treated as income from other sources. 4. As regards the abovesaid finding on the point of interest on refund, ld. CIT(A) upheld the same while observing that the interest income was income ... sources. At the same time, ld. CIT(A) held that interest income to the tune of Rs. 4,88,959/- only was the income from other sources. In this manner, the ld. CIT(A) deleted an addition of Rs. 10,77,661/- made by the AO, and upheld the addition

Nitesh Rajhans Singh, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer -26(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4114/MUM/2023[BAMPS4588L]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Laxmi Kant.Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the business and derives income from business, income from capital gains and income from other sources. The assessee has e-filed the return of income for the A.Y 2013-14 on 28.11.2013 disclosing a total income ... sale of shares of Rs. 2,10,29,775/- and exemption u/s 10(38) is claimed. Further the assesse has also shown Income from Other Sources which includes interest from FDR and saving bank account. 3. Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of IT Act, 1961: The assesse has. filed

Jai Karan Singh, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Mohali

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

ITA 638/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG (President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

that the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 9,48,690/- under the head “income from Salary” and “income from other sources” after claiming deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act. The case of the assessee was thereafter selected for scrutiny under CASS

Pralay Pradyotkanti Ghosh, Ahmedabad vs. Income -Tax Officer, Ward-1, International Taxation, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 298/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.298/Ahd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pralay Pradyotkanti Ghosh The Ito बनाम/ 22, Konark Society Ward-1 Nr. Railway Colony International Taxation V/S. Jawahar Chowk, Sabarmati Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 380 019 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abypg 6172 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”], Dated 01/06/2022, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S.144C(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 22/10/2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. Pralay Pradyotkanti Ghosh Vs. Ito (Intl.Taxation) Asst. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 192Section 2Section 5(2)(b)

assessee submitted that, he is an Engineer (Under Water Inspector) working at offshore fields. During the year under consideration, the assessee shown income from other sources and capital gains. The assessee also received salary income from his employer (Oceaneering International GMBH) to the tune of Rs.61,74,262/- on which ... Subject to the provisions of this Act, the total income of any previous vear of a person who is a resident includes all income from whatever source derived which – (a) is received or is deemed to be received in India in such year hy or on behalf of such person

Shankar Sewani, New Market vs. Assessing Officer, Aaykar Bhawan

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 25/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Shankar Sewani, Dcit-1(1), 10 Kala Niketan, Bhopal New Market, Vs. T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adkps6959H Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 234BSection 3

assessee has shown income from house property, profit & gains from business & profession, short term capital gains, long term capital gains and income from other sources. No scrutiny assessment has been made in the case of the assessee. During the course of search operation in Signature group conducted by Investigation Wing

Income Tax Officer, Ujjain vs. M.P. Police Sakh Shakari Sanstha Maryadit, Ujjain

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 174/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

interest income received on FDR/Deposits kept in the bank or other institutions and thus is required to be treated as income from other sources. 2. The AO had no where mentioned in assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 15.06.2017 for A.Y. 2015-16 issue with regards to allow ability ... interest income received on FDR/Deposits kept in the bank or other institutions and thus is required to be treated as income from other sources. 2. The AO had no where mentioned in assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 15.06.2017 for A.Y. 2015-16 issue with regards to allow ability

Income Tax Officer, Ujjain vs. M.P. Police Sakh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Ujjain

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 173/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Om Prakash Thakur, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 29(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 542/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaom Prakash Thakur, Vs. Ito, Ward 29 (3), 118/01, Govind Puri, Galli No.2, New Delhi. Opp. To Kalkaji Bust Depot, New Delhi – 110 019. (Pan : Abgpt9067R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tajender Khanna, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Order : 12.07.2024 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 17.01.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. The Assessing Officer Has Erred In & (Nfac) Has Compounded The Error By Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer Limiting The Value Of The Deduction To Rs. 65.45 Lakh Only I.E. By Not Allowing Rs. 23.50 Lakh Which Was Paid By Assessee For Putting The House In Habitable Condition Under Section 54 Of The Income Tax Act. 2. The Assessing Officer Has Erred In & (Nf Ac) Has Compounded The Error By Not Recognizing The Fact That The Assessee Had Entered Into Two Separate Contracts With The Same Builder One For The Purchase Of Raw House Property & Second

For Appellant: Shri Tajender Khanna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 54

individual. The sources of income of the assessee for the year under consideration are income from business, income from capital gain and income from other sources. The return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,09,510/- for the concerned year was e-filed on 30.09.2013 and the same

Raja Chinda Durai, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 49(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 3249/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 194DSection 44ASection 57

Assessing Officer rejected the income declared by the assessee u/s 44AD of the Act and treated the income declared by the assessee as income from other sources amounting to Rs.6,52,340/- and balance claim of Rs.28,55,532/- u/s 57 of the Act. Accordingly, the total income ... 44AD of the Act. He submitted that subsequently the assessee has revised the return of income declaring the income earned under the head income from other sources. The Assessing Officer rejected the same and subsequently assessee has filed profit and loss account and balance sheet before the Assessing Officer

Sat Sahib Securities Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 785/DEL/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Sat Sahib Securities Pvt. Vs Dcit Ltd. Pvt. Ltd., B-129, Anand Circle – 7 (1) Vihar, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi Pan No.Aabcs2456G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 254

subscribe for the same or to guarantee the subscription thereof. Apart from above, it has also shown income from Capital Gains and Income from Other Sources (Dividend). The assessee company has shown a total income of Rs 1,8737259/- under three different heads i.e income from business