“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

Pradipta Kumar Parida DCIT321, Mumbai vs. Kail Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4669/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 14A

whether the expenditure under Section 57 (iii) of the Act could be allowed as a deduction against dividend income assessable under the head “income from other sources”. Under Section 57 (iii) of the Act deduction is allowed in respect of any expenditure laid out or expended wholly or exclusively

ITO-26(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sangli Vaibhav Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3770/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(d)

interest income received from co-operative bank. The contention of the Revenue is that the interest income is in the nature of ‘Income from Other Sources’ and therefore, deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act would not be available to the Assessee. It has also been contended ... irrespective of the fact that such interest income is in the nature of ‘profits and gains of business’ or ‘income from other sources’ as Section 80P(2)(d) uses the expression ‘any income’ and not ‘profits & gains of business’. Our view draws strength from the decision of the Tribunal

ITO-26(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sangli Vaibhav Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3769/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(d)

ITO-26(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sangli Vaibhav Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3766/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(d)

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT - 10 (1), Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6025/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleand

Section 42(1)(a)Section 80Section 80I

earned from investment in short-term deposit of surplus funds acquired in public issue of shares should be assessed as business income or income from other sources. Thus, the facts of the cases relied upon by the Assessing Officer are totally different from the facts of the case in hand

DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5979/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleand

Section 42(1)(a)Section 80Section 80I

Alliance Propmart Private Limited, Greater Noida vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3298/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

asset and has dismissed the arguments of the assessee without even bothering to look at the statutory provisions relating to capital gain and income from other sources. 3. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) wrongly added the income under the head Long Term Capital Gain and has not anywhere

Radha Sharan Goswami, Bhopal vs. DDIT, CPC, Banglore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/IND/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniradha Sharan Goswami Ddit, Cpc B-18, Industrial Area Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adzpg1806E Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.05.2024

Section 143(1)Section 154

case, liable to be annulled. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs 5,48,154 /- as Income from other sources out of total addition of Rs.94,76,461.” 2. At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that ... that the say of the assessee is in order for following items Page 3 of 6 ITANo.527/Ind/2023 Radha Sharan Goswami a. Agriculture Income Income from other sources 9,82,434 b. Interest on savings account Income from other sources 58,148 c. FDR interest Income from other sources

K-293 Ponneri Primary Agricultural Co Operative Credit Society, Tirupur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (4), Tirupur

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 742/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.742/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) K-293 Ponneri Primary Agricultural Income Tax Officer Co Operative Credit Society Ward 2(4), बनाम/ Vs. Udumalpet To Tiruppur Road, Tirupur. Ponneri, Kottamanagalm, Udumalpet – 642 201. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabak-3369-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Vijayalakshmi, (Ca)– Ld.Ar ""थ" कीओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V.Srinivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Ms. Vijayalakshmi, (CA)– Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Srinivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(i)

from M/s Coimbatore Central Co-operative Bank. The Ld. AO, observing that surplus funds were parked with that bank, assessed the income as income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment for want of representation from the assessee. The Ld. AR has submitted that the impugned deduction

Golam Iyajdani Mondal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 63(1), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3479/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. G. S. Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kr. Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

justified. (ii) However, in case if the appellant's submission is not acceptable an addition could have held U/s 68 or income from other sources. (iii) That the learned A.O. had held irreparable error by applying the proviso 69A, thus, such order deserves to be quashed. 5. That in view

S.B. Cotton Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1072/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 37

case in confirming the action of Assessing Officer of treating interest income earned on fixed deposit of Rs.56,74,209/- as income from other sources without appreciating the facts and law of the case properly. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal ... order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.10.2016 by treating the full interest income of Rs.56,74,209/- as ‘income from other sources’ and after making disallowance of Rs.25,66,699/- towards remuneration paid to Directors payment of finance cost, depreciation and administrative expenses. 5. While

Shri Devendra Swarupchand Shingavi, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(A), Pune-11, Pune

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

ITA 316/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Pune20 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri B C MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from rental income from house property and income from other sources. A search and seizure action was conducted u/s 132 of the Act in the case of assessee 2 on 04.11.2017. In response

Nalini Kejriwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-35(2), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 672/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.672/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Nalini Kejriwal……..……….….…………............…...……………....Appellant 7, Lyons Range, Dalhousie, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Ajopk0890K] Vs. Ito, Ward-35(2), Kolkata…….............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Umakanta Dhrupati, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 14, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 20, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.05.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1A) That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T.(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,01,98,784/- Being Profit Earned From Sale Of Shares Of M/S. Gcm Securities Ltd. As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S. 68 Of The Act Without Considering The Explanation With Supporting Evidences Filed By The Appellant In A Proper Perspective. B) That, The Ld. C.I.T.(A) Further Erred In Not Considering That Despite Details Provided & The Fact That No Long Term Capital Gain Was Claimed In Respect Of The Impugned Transaction Of Sale Of Shares Of M/S.

Section 250Section 5Section 68Section 69C

earned from sale of alleged shares of M/s. GCM Securities Ltd. had already been offered to tax under the head "income from other sources" and as such, further addition of the said sum by invoking sec.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, will only lead to double taxation ... litigation/penalty or any other harassment or any consequences, the assessee suo moto offered the profits earned on the sale of shares as ‘income from other sources’ and paid the due taxes. However, the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings held that the said gains were not genuine and again added

Chathankandath Usha, Kootanad vs. Income Tax Officer, Palakkad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 605/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Smt. Jamuna Devi, Sr.D.R

Section 250

agricultural income i.e., a sum of Rs.9 lakhs, out of the total agricultural income of Rs.45 lakhs, assessing the same under the head “income from other sources”. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A),Thrissur challenging the order of the AO dated 30.03.2015, which was later migrated

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Enzen Global Solutions Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 718/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri V Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, JCIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250

income of Rs.56,09,42,530/- after making an addition of Rs.21,45,00,000/- on account of premium accrued on RPS under Income from other sources. 9. The ld. AR relied on the order of the Tribunal. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Enzen Global Solutions Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 696/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri V Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, JCIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250

National Dairy Development Board, Anand vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2994/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

appointed only one person, Assessing Officer was justified in treating rental income assessable as ‘income from house property’ and services receipts as ‘income from other sources’. 25. Accordingly, in view of the facts of the case, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) in holding that

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax., Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2954/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

National Dairy Development Board, Anand vs. The ACIT., Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2004/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

The ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1873/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: PendingITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)