← 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

The Woodland Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. CPC, Bangalore, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 309/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 309/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2021-22) The Woodland Vs. The Deputy Cooperative Housing Commissioner Of Society Limited Income Tax 101, Woodland 23 (1) Mumbai Heights 23, Dr. Raghunath Road, Bandra West Mumbai-400 050. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashish Thakurdesai Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 06.06.2024 Date Of 27.06.2024 Pronouncement O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Woodland Cooperative Housing Society Ltd Against The Appellate Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Lucknow (The Learned Cit – A) For Assessment Year 2021 – 22 Dated 28/11/2023 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Intimation Order Passed Under Section 143 (1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 19 October 2022 By The Central Processing Centre Bangalore Made An Adjustment On Account Of Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 80 P (2) (D) With Respect To Interest Income Earned By These Cooperative Society From Other Cooperative Banks Amounting To ₹ 410,340/–, Is Dismissed. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Shows That Assessee Is A Resident Housing Cooperative Society, Filed Its Return Of Income On 28/12/2021 For The Impugned Assessment Year Where The Due Date Was 31/12/2021 Declaring Total Income Of ₹ 43,160/–. The Assessee Has Earned

Section 10ASection 139Section 142Section 143Section 80

which has been allowed as a deduction under section 80 P of the act. However the assessee has shown ₹ 4,010,340/– as income from other sources not as the business income therefore same was not allowed as deduction under section 80 P of the act. 3. Assessee aggrieved with ... account of interest income earned by the assessee from other cooperative banks even if it is disclosed as income from other sources and whether the adjustment made by the central processing Centre is correct or not. 5. As per provisions of section 143 (1) (a) permits following adjustment

Saravanan Palaniappan, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(4), Chennai

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

ITA 931/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 931/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Saravanan Palaniappan, The Assistant Commissioner Of 45/21, Poes Garden, Vs. Income Tax, Teynampet, Central Circle 2(4) Chennai 600 086. Chennai. Pan: Ayepp 4761H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)[Cit(A)] Chennai-19 Dated 21.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Assessee Is An Individual & Has Filed The Return Of Income. A Search Was Conducted In The Case Of Kallal Group On 11.03.2021. During Assessment Proceedings Assessee Failed To Explain Sources For The Expenditure, Loan, Investment Etc.. Therefore, The Ao Has Passed Order Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) Dated 27.09.2022 & Made Various Additions & Assessed The Income At Rs.81,58,86,115/- Which Includes Unexplained Expenditure, Unexplained Cash, Unexplained Loan, Unexplained Investment In Gold Jewellery & Silvers Items & Income From Other Sources.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, IRS, CIT
Section 144

income at Rs.81,58,86,115/- which includes unexplained expenditure, unexplained cash, unexplained loan, unexplained investment in gold jewellery and silvers items and income from other sources. 3. Further, the appellant filed the appeal against the order under section 144 of the Act dated 27.09.2022 before

Kamal Co-Op Hsg Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4796/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22 M/S. Kamal Co-Op Hsg Income Tax Ward Society Ltd. 19(2)(2) 69, Kamal Society, Room No.608, Vs. 6Th Floor, Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai - 400006 Piramal Chambers, Pan: Aaaak0570C Lalbaug, Mumbai - 400012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri P.D. Chougule (Addl. Cit), Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 . 06 . 2024 O R D E R Per: Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The ‘Act’ In Short] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1058240824(1) Dated 26/11/2023 For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Following Grounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule (Addl. CIT), SR. D.R
Section 143Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

banks made by the Learned Assessing Officer. The Appellant, therefore, submits that the addition of Rs. 56,36,088/- made under the head "Income from Other Sources' be deleted and the deduction of Rs. 56,36,088/- claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) be allowed. 2. Without prejudice to the above ... earned on deposits/investment with Schedule Bank/District Cooperative Bank is not the business/operational income of the assessee and will be taxed under the head ‘Income from other sources’. The Ld. Assessing Officer has also placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT