← 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

Fatichand Rameshlal, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Salem

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 898/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.897/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Rameshlal Kailash Ito बनाम/ 1F, Rajaji Road, Ward -1(4) Vs. Salem-636 007. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aekpk-0380-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.898/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Fatichand Rameshlal Ito बनाम/ 1F, Rajaji Road, Ward -1(4) Vs. Salem-636 007. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acfpr-4254-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)

income was offered as ‘business income’. The Ld. AO objected to the same and opined that the same was to be offered as ‘income from other sources’. The assessee relied on various decisions to support the fact that excess stock and cash related to business would be taxable as ‘business ... specified u/s 115BBE. Finally, business income was reduced to the extent of Rs.190 Lacs and the same was brought to tax as ‘income from other sources’. Similar assessment was framed in the case of assessee’s son Shri Rameshlal Kailash. Appellate proceedings 3.1 During appellate proceedings, the assessee drew attention

Rameshlal Kailash, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Salem

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 897/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.897/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Rameshlal Kailash Ito बनाम/ 1F, Rajaji Road, Ward -1(4) Vs. Salem-636 007. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aekpk-0380-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.898/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Fatichand Rameshlal Ito बनाम/ 1F, Rajaji Road, Ward -1(4) Vs. Salem-636 007. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acfpr-4254-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)

income was offered as ‘business income’. The Ld. AO objected to the same and opined that the same was to be offered as ‘income from other sources’. The assessee relied on various decisions to support the fact that excess stock and cash related to business would be taxable as ‘business ... specified u/s 115BBE. Finally, business income was reduced to the extent of Rs.190 Lacs and the same was brought to tax as ‘income from other sources’. Similar assessment was framed in the case of assessee’s son Shri Rameshlal Kailash. Appellate proceedings 3.1 During appellate proceedings, the assessee drew attention

DCIT Centralcircle-2(3), Chennai vs. M/S Tangi Fcility Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 735/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.735/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit M/S. Tangi Facility Solutions Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2(3) Old No.42, New No.2, Chennai-34. Luz Avenue, Mylapore, Vs. Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafct-1408-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mrs. Swapna Nanu Ambath (Cit)- Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Shivakumar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024

For Appellant: Mrs. Swapna Nanu Ambath (CIT)- Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri G. Shivakumar (Advocate)-Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(b)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

addition of Rs.254,55,24,025/ made towards shares, being bonus shares received without consideration, against the fair market value of shares as "Income from other sources" by invoking provision u/s.56(2)(viia) 2.1 The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the intent behind the insertion of clause (vii) in Sec.56 ... which the public are not substantially interested, the difference between actual consideration and fair market value of shares is to be treated as " Income from other sources" under this clause. 2.2 The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the AO has adopted fair market value of shares @ Rs.275 per share

Renault Nissan Automotive India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Corpoate Circle-5(3), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 206/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.206/Chny/2018 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S.Renault Nissan Automotive India Dcit Private Limited Company Circle-V(3), बनाम Plot No.1, Sipcot Industrial Park, Chennai. / Vs. Oragadam, Mattur Post, Sriperumbudur-602 015. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aadcr-7965-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N.V.Balaji (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri V.Nandakumar (Cit) -Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-04-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri N.V.Balaji (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri V.Nandakumar (CIT) -Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

Short term Capital Gains. 10.1 The assessee earned profit of Rs.706.21 Lacs on sale of investments. The assessee offered the same as income from other sources instead of under the head capital gains. It was noted that the assessee offered income of Rs.594.90 Lacs only. Accordingly, the differential of Rs.111.31 ... upheld the addition. 10.2 We find that the gains on sale of mutual funds have been offered to tax by the assessee under ‘income from other sources’ and therefore, the assessee is precluded to take benefit of cited circular of CBDT. The assessee, in books of accounts, has followed particular

Ketan Harilal Mehta HUF by Its Karta Ketan H Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-33(2)(2) Mumbai Presently Juridiction With ITO 42(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 770/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleketan Harilal Mehta Huf Vs. Ito-42(1)(1), (By Its Karta Kautilya Bhavan, Ketanmehta)No.B/1101, Bkc,Bandra(E), Siddhi Vinayak Tower, Mumbai-400051. Opp Phoenix Hospital, Chikuwadi, Mumbai-400092. Pan/Gir No. : Aaehk3266N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Nishit Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Shri. P.D. Chougule.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)(Cit(A)) Delhi Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec250 Of The Income Tax Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Nishit Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Shri. P.D. Chougule.Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 68Section 69C

details and the case was discussed. The AO found that the assessee has disclosed income from business, income from capital gains and income from other sources. Further the assessee Ketan Harilal Mehta, HUF,Mumbai. has claimed exemption U/sec10(38) of the Act being long term capital gains on sale ... assessees who belong to H group, AO did not accept the capital gains and treated the entire sale proceeds of the shares as income from undisclosed sources under s. 68-Not justified-Fact that the assessees in the group have purchased and sold shares of the same companies through