← 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

Asst CIT Cir 25(3), Mumbai vs. Nailesh S. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as Partly Allowed

ITA 4847/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.4847/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बनधम/ Acit-25(3) Nailesh S Mehta Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th 102, Hiralaya, Plot No. 19, Jvpd Vs. Floor, Pratyakshakar Scheme Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- Bhavan, Bandra Kurla 400056. Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aczpm0898D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sumat Chadha Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/07/2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/07/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per B R Baskaran, Am: The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05- 04-2017 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-37, Mumbai & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2012-13. Following Issues Are Urged In This Appeal:- (A) Whether The Ld Cit(A) Was Right In Holding That The Compensation Received On Cancellation Of Flats Booked By The Assessee Is Genuine Business Income & Not Cash Credit Representing Accommodation Entry, Which Is Assessable As Income Of The Assessee Under The Head Income From Other Sources. (B) Whether The Ld Cit(A) Was Right In Deleting The Disallowance Made By The Ao U/S 14A Of The Act Read With Rule 8D Of I T Rules. (C) Whether The Decision Rendered By Ld Cit(A) In Respect Of Profits Generated In Commodity Derivatives & Loss Incurred In Trading In Futures & Option Is Correct.

For Appellant: Shri Sumat ChadhaFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR
Section 14A

assessee is genuine business income and not cash credit representing accommodation entry, which is assessable as income of the assessee under the head Income from other sources. (b) Whether the Ld CIT(A) was right in deleting the disallowance made by the AO u/s 14A of the Act read with ... assessee has availed accommodation entry of Rs.10,01,64,000/- and the same is assessable as income of the assessee under the head “Income from other sources”. 3.1 The Ld D.R submitted that the assessee did not furnish any document to prove the genuineness of transactions of booking of flats

Maruti Infraventures (India) Private Limited, Secunderabad vs. ITO Ward-16(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 160/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 160/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Maruti Infrainventures Vs. Income Tax Officer (India) Private Ltd Ward 16(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcm6624A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ch Rajeswara Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri CH Rajeswara Reddy, DR
Section 115J

estimated on total turnover declared by the assessee. However, the incentives received for earlier years to Rs.38,13,276/- has been treated as income from other sources and made separate Page 3 of 10 ITA No 160 of 2024 Maruti Infraventures India P Ltd addition. The Assessing Officer had also ... assessee had also submitted that the Assessing Officer is erred in estimating 8% profit on income from operations and making separate addition from income from other sources. The learned CIT (A) after considering the relevant submission and also taken note of various reasons given by the Assessing Officer rejected