← 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

Sandip Madhukar Mhatre, Uran, Dist, Raigad vs. Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, I.T.Department, Panvel

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

ITA 308/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.308/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sandip Madhukar Mhatre, Vs. Assessing Officer, House No.1193, Mulekhand, Assessment Unit, I.T. At Post Uran Telipada, Department, Panvel. Dist. Raigad- 400702. Pan : Aempm9754P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.01.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Ex-Parte, For Alleged Non-Compliance To Appeal Notices, Inspite Of The Appellant Being Not Aware Of The Notices Issued & For This Reason The Order Dismissing The Appeal Was Not Justified & May Kindly Be Over Turned & Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 28Section 57

reply/submission of the assessee, the AO disallowed deduction of Rs.6,39,18,952 claimed u/s 57 of the IT Act, under the head “Income from other sources” & passed the assessment order determining total income of the assessee at Rs.8,54,84,622/- 4. Being aggrieved with the above action

New Balance It Services India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Income Tax Officer(1)- Circle 2, Punepune, Pune

ITA 246/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 0245 & 0246/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 & 2022-23 New Balance It Services India Pvt. Ltd. Level-1, Wing-A, Tower-06, Cybercity, Magarpatta, Pune-411013. Pan : Aaccn5091R . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Income Tax Officer-1, Circle-2, Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rajendra Agiwal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Twin Appeals Are Instituted U/S 253(1)(Aa) Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging The Respective First Appellate Orders Dt. 19/12/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appels [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2022-23 [‘Ay’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Separate Orders Of Intimation Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr Rajendra Agiwal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 145Section 145(2)Section 250Section 253(1)(aa)Section 28

prescribes two methods of accounting for arriving at taxability of income under the head ‘Profits and Gains of Business or Profession’ [‘PGBP’] or ‘Income from other Sources’ [‘IOS’] namely; (a) ‘Cash system’, where all transactions are recorded as & when they are paid & received irrespective of year in which they

New Balance It Services India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Income Tax Officer(1)- Circle 2, Pune

ITA 245/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 0245 & 0246/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 & 2022-23 New Balance It Services India Pvt. Ltd. Level-1, Wing-A, Tower-06, Cybercity, Magarpatta, Pune-411013. Pan : Aaccn5091R . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Income Tax Officer-1, Circle-2, Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rajendra Agiwal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Twin Appeals Are Instituted U/S 253(1)(Aa) Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging The Respective First Appellate Orders Dt. 19/12/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appels [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2022-23 [‘Ay’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Separate Orders Of Intimation Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr Rajendra Agiwal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 145Section 145(2)Section 250Section 253(1)(aa)Section 28

prescribes two methods of accounting for arriving at taxability of income under the head ‘Profits and Gains of Business or Profession’ [‘PGBP’] or ‘Income from other Sources’ [‘IOS’] namely; (a) ‘Cash system’, where all transactions are recorded as & when they are paid & received irrespective of year in which they

Aurelia Housing Co-Operative Society Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-49(4), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1138/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1138/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aurelia Housing Co-Perative Income Tax Officer, Ward-49(4), Society Ltd. Vs Kolkata Premises No.-30 2222, Plot No. Cd-19 Action Area-I Major Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaaba0803F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Prabhas Roy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 22/08/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. On The Previous Occasion When The Case Was Fixed For Hearing On 07/02/2024 & 23/01/2024, The Assessee Sought Adjournment. Today, There Is No Appearance. We, Therefore, Decide To Adjudicate The Appeal On The Basis Of Available Record & Hearing The Ld. D/R. 3. The Sole Issue Involved In The Instant Appeal Is The Disallowance Of Depreciation Claimed Of Rs. 33,69,260/-. Facts In Brief Are That The 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prabhas Roy, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 2Section 250Section 36Section 57

return filed on 30/01/2018. Case selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the reason that “large deduction claimed under section 57 (Deduction against income from Other Sources”. After serving the valid notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, the ld. Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain ... tune of Rs. 6,72,172/-. No other business activity is being carried out. Depreciation has been claimed under the head income from other sources but no details have been filed. Considering this aspect, the ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation of Rs.33,69,260/- and assessed income at Rs.10

Ifb Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 212/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 212/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ifb Automotive Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Plot No. Ind-V, Sector-1 Vs Tax, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata East Kolkata Township Kasba Industrial Estate Kolkata - 700107 [Pan : Aabci2766H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 12/12/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Income Tax Department, Delhi Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Confirming The Disallowance & Addition Made By The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(L), Kolkata (Assessing Officer) On Account Of Profit On Sale Of Fixed Assets Of Rs. 41,61,190/- Ignoring The Provisions Under Section 50 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Confirming The Disallowance & Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer On Account Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 50

automobile parts. In the e-return furnished for Assessment Year 2014-15 on 27/11/2014 showing business loss of Rs.7,84,99,201/- and income from other sources at Rs.1,32,59,821/-. Case selected for scrutiny followed by service of notice