← 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

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Sankaran Nirmala, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 807/CHNY/2023[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.807/Chny/2023 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, Sankaran Nirmala, Corporate Ward-6(1), Vs. Steeple Reach, First Floor, Chennai. Cathedral Road, Chennai – 600 086. [Pan: Acgpn-0803-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथG की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy, Advocate IjथG की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 16.05.2023 Arising From The Assessment Order Of National E Assessment Center For The Assessment Year 2018-19. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Suhrith ParthasarathyFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271ASection 69

above, Rs. 3,43,46,812/- has remained unexplained and added back to the total income of the assessee under the head income from other sources u/s. 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Penalty proceeding is initiated separately u/s. 271AAC of the 1.T. Act, 1961 on this issue

Tejraj Dalichand Jain, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 560/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2018-19 Tejraj Dalichand Jain National Faceless Flat No. 14, Nakshtra, Assessment Centre Vs. Chandavarkar Road, Ito 25(2)(2) Borivali (West)- 400092. Bkc, Mumbai. Pan: Aabpj3476C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P.D. Chougule, (Addl. Cit), Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 05 . 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 (“Act” In Short) Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059124020(1) Dated 28.12.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Following Grounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised: “The Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To, One Another-

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, (Addl. CIT), Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 271BSection 28Section 28(5)Section 44A

case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under E- Assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues:- Sr. No. Issues i. Deduction from income from other sources ii. Capital gains/ income on sale of property 3 Tejraj Dalichand Jain The assessing officer, on perusal of the return of income and material ... available on record, found that the interest income received by the assessee from partnership firm was wrongly shown under the head of „income from other sources‟ whereas, the same should have been shown under the head profit and gains from business and profession. Accordingly, the assessing officer recomputed the income

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Essar Power Gujarat Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 137/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2014-15 Mr. Arun Bende M/S. Essar Power Asst. Commissioner Of Gujarat Ltd. 11Th Floor, Essar House, Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Mumbai. 11 K.K. Marg, Vs. Room No.504, 5Th Floor, Mahalaxmi, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400034. M.K.Road, Pan:Aabce7510K Mumbai- 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit), D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 05 . 2024 O R D E R Per: Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (“Act” In Short) Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1058193153(1) Dated 23.11.2023 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Following Grounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised:

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT), D.R
Section 250Section 801ASection 92C

progress (WIP) account, ignoring the detailed reasoning given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order that it is taxable under the head "Income from Other Sources" 2. The Appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) on the NIL above grounds be set aside and that ... margin money kept for obtaining bank guarantee/letters for credit for power business is to be assessed under the head „Business Income‟ instead of „income from other sources‟. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is engaged in the business of operating imported coal based power