← 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

Meenakshi Energy and Infrastructure Holdings Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 291/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.291/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Meenakshi Energy & Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Infrastructure Holdings (P) Circle 5 (1) Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcm6917L (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate Shri A.V. Raghuram रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri K.Meghanath Chowhan,(Cit)Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 27/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: : Shri K.Meghanath Chowhan,(CIT)DR
Section 72(1)

corporate deposits, there is no other business activities carried out by the assessee. Further, the assessee has declared interest income under the head income from other sources for the earlier A.Ys. Therefore, without there being any changes in facts, the question of changing the head of income in respect ... brought forward business losses. Therefore, rejected the explanation furnished by the assessee and assessed interest income under the head “income from other sources”. The Assessing Officer had also denied the set of brought forward business losses in terms of section 72(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the ground

M/S. Plaza Agencies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Circle-5(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in substance and set aside to the file of AO for limited purpose of quantification of the amount of expenses and depreciation

ITA 910/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavplaza Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 5(1)(2) #41, Mantri House Bengaluru Vittal Mallya Road Vs. Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaccp0589Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. Present Assessee’S Appeal Is Arising From The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 08.04.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Having Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2004-25/1063981275(1).

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 14ASection 250

declaring income house property at Rs.1,05,82,839/-, income from capital gain at Rs. 26,42,278/-, loss under the head income from other sources of Rs.7,68,79,249/- and business of Rs.97,23,869/-. The assessee set off the loss from other sources against the entire income ... assessee pressed ground Nos. 3 & 3.1 and craved that the AO ought to have allowed the sef-off of loss with Income From Other sources (IOS). Ld Counsel argued that AO has exceeded his jurisdiction while framing the computation in as much as the case of the assessee, was selected