“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

Manish Srichand Pardasani, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4871/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 69A

that, the assessee is engaged in liquor business and also director in companies. The assessee derives income from salary, income from business and income from other sources. The assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y2020-21 on 15.01.2021 disclosing a total income of Rs.1.07.19.820/-. Whereas in the search

Usha Janakalyan Nagar Chs Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer-30(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4695/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalusha Janakalyan Nagar Vs. Ito-30(1)(1), Chs Ltd, Kautilya Bhavan, 211, Bkc, Bandra (E), Kharodi,Marveroad, Mumbai-400051. Malad (W), Mumbai-400095. Pan/Gir No. : Aaaau1039J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Kunal Lunawat.Ar Respondent By : Ms. Rajeswari Menon, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2024 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), Delhi/Cit (A) Passed U/Sec 154 & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Kunal Lunawat.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeswari Menon, Sr.DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

maintain the Usha Janakalyan Nagar Chs Ltd., Mumbai. society building where the members are residing.The assessee derives income from house property maintenance and income from other sources .The assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2014-15 on 11-09-2014 disclosing a total income of Rs.Nil ... referred in the Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act and therefore the interest income from cooperative banks has to be taxed under income from other sources and assessed the total income of Rs.4,63,609/- and passed the order u/sec 143(1) of the Act. Further the assessee

Shri Nilesh Haresh Parwani, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-22(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2244/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Nilesh Haresh Vs. The Assistant Parwani, 501, Chumchum Commissioner Of Income Saraswati Road, Tax-22 (2) Santacruz West, Room No. 315, Piramal Mumbai – 400 064 Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Angpp1224L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sanjay Parikh Respondent By : Anil Sant Date Of Hearing 08.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac For A.Y. 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “A. Addition/Disallowance Of Short Term Capital Loss Rs.1,62,91,466/- 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Addition/Disallowance Of Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs. 1,62,91,466/- As Made By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, 22(2), Mumbai (Ao). 2. While Confirming The Addition/Disallowance Of The Said Loss, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Appellant Had Not Made Out A Case As To How Such Huge Ltcg/Stcl Has Accrued To The Appellant From Shares Of The Company Named Global Infratech Ltd.

For Appellant: Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Anil Sant

Section 143(2)Section 69C

appellant assessee is related to the addition made u/s 69C of the IT Act of Rs. 4,88,743/- under the head income from other sources. The appellant assessee in its ground has stated that the AO, had made the addition without assigning any reasons. In this regard, the appellant

DCIT Central Circle-13, Jhandewalan New Delhi vs. Magic Auto Pvt Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2152/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhaneshta, Sr. DR

Section 145(3)Section 68

therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will have no application so as to treat the income of the assessee as income from other sources. Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Transport Pvt. Ltd. reported in 84 Taxman 146 on identical facts took ... sufficient cash in hand in the books of account of the assessee, that there was no reason to treat the cash deposits as income from undisclosed sources. The Hon'ble Vishakapatnam Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Hirapanna Jewelers in ITA No. 253/Viz/2020 on identical facts held that when

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Nashik vs. Swa Ashokrao Bankar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nashik

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 58/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 57Section 80(2)(d)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

assessee society is earned on surplus funds and not its operational income inserted in Co-operative Bank and is to be taxed as income from other sources. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A), NFAC has erred in deleting the addition and not justifying ... Rs.5,17,50,911/- as interest from investments held in various banks. Therefore, Rs.5,17,50,911/- is now brought to tax as income from other sources. As per Sec.57, the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 57(iii) the calculation similar to that of old Rule

The Vidarbha Region Life Insurance Corporation Employees Co Op Society Ltd, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Nagpur

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

ITA 419/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Aniruddha GhudeFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

accordingly, disallowed the claim of exemption of the assessee of ` 1,97,83,227, and make this addition, treating the same as income from other sources. The assessee being aggrieved by the order so passed by the Assessing Officer, filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 4. The learned

Anand Shaktikumar Sancheti, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 340/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 115BSection 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270A

income at ` 91,89,490. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason that the assessee claimed deduction against income from other sources and dividend income. Notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was issued and served upon the assessee

P. Surendran, Trivandrum vs. ACIT Circle 1(2), Trivandrum

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

ITA 978/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

For Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)Section 40a

provisions of section 40A(3) would apply in computing the income under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” and “Income from other sources” as per section 58(2). All payments in excess of Rs.2,500 at one time whether for goods or services obtained for cash

Mudur Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Ltd., Udupi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Udupi

ITA 299/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh R. Uppin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 143(1)Section 18Section 2(24)(viia)Section 56Section 80GSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 8P(2)(d)

Rs.19,92,621 and Rs.12,777 u/s. 80P(2)(c) was claimed by the assessee and entire interest were shown under the head income from other source, accordingly AO disallowed entire deduction totaling to Rs.67,98,255. 3.2 Further from the detail furnished it was noted that the assessee ... earned on account of deposits made with co-operative banks and commercial banks, the CIT(Appeals) observed such income in its nature is income from other sources taxable u/s. 56 and cannot be categorized as profits and gains of business of the assessee and will not fall within the ambit

Nagapura Credit Co Operative Society, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 226/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Gireesha T.L, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessee on the ground that interest income earned by making investment of surplus funds has to be assessed under the head "Income from Other Sources" and not income from business and since interest income is not assessed as business income, the claim for deduction under section ... securities by a Co-operative Society providing credit facilities to members or marketing agricultural produce to members is not business income but income from other sources and the society is not entitled to special deduction. 2.7. While Ld.AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court

Nagapura Credit Co Operative Society, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 225/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Gireesha T.L, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Nagapura Credit Co Operative Society, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 224/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Gireesha T.L, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Nagapura Credit Co Operative Society, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 223/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Gireesha T.L, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Larsen Toubro Kamgar Sahakari Patpedni Marydit, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4446/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 809(2)(d)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

income earned from district cooperative bank or state cooperative bank, come within the ambit of section 80P (2)(d), therefore the income constitutes income from other sources and it is eligible for deduction covered u/s 80P(2)(d). Otherwise section 80P(2)(d) specifies any income by way of interest ... dividend which is otherwise taxable under the head income from other sources, deduction is allowable if the same is derived from investment made with any other cooperative societies. 9. In contravention, section 80P (2)(a) provides income from carrying out various activities which is in the nature of business. Irrespective

Waa Mall LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3729/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Waa Mall Llp Vs. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-2(4) 602, Western Edge-1 Rom No. 802,85Th Floor Western Express Highway Pratishtha Bhavan Borivali (E), Mumbai 400066 M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Pan/Gir No. :Aamfv5555D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pratik JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, JCIT

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 68

granted loan to the assessee and also filed supporting documents, i.e. copy of income tax return showing that she was earning income from other sources and salary income from the past years. However, the AO has not agreed with ITA No.3729/Mum/2023 A.Y.2019-20 4 WAA MALL

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Grp Auto, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the revenue is also dismissed

ITA 5763/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmagrp Auto, Vs. Jcit, 19, Rajasthan Udyog Range-19, Nagar, Gt Karnal New Delhi Road, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaffg6813L Acit, Vs. Grp Auto, Circle-34(1), 19, Rajasthan New Delhi Udyog Nagar, Gt Karnal Road, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaffg6813L

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Gaur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40A(2)

worked out to @10.79%. The ld AO observed that excess income offered on account of excess stock to be taxed only as income from other sources and hence, the same cannot be considered as business income of the assessee and consequently, the same should not be considered for the purpose

Grp Auto, Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the revenue is also dismissed

ITA 5708/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi14 May 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Gaur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40A(2)

Sondekoppa Sundarswamy Naganand, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 607/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

property of Rs.21,42,904/-, income from business and profession of Rs.6,51,42,543/-, income from Capital Gains of Rs.28,794/- and income from other sources of Rs.88,50,706/-. 3.2 However, while in computation sheet, he has taken business income at Rs.6,69,05,839/- instead of Rs.6

Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 604/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 44ASection 80Section 801ASection 80I

Rs.36,34,320/-. This income comprised of: a) Income from House property (64,149.00) b) Income from Business 50,04,395.00 c) Income from other sources 38,58,473.00 ---------------- 87,98,719.00 Less: Deduction

Mullagolla Praneeth, K V Rangareddy vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Hospet

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

ITA 601/BANG/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey & Sp No.21/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramaniyan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 144

NFAC erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO by treating agricultural income earned by the Appellant as income from other sources without considering that the same has been accepted in the previous years and the Appellant had sufficient land holding to substantiate the agricultural income ... assessee from Rs.15,51,650/- to Rs.14,02,95,990/- by making following additions: a) Unexplained cash deposit Rs.9,24,88,592 b) Income from undisclosed source used Rs.3,79,77,185 for repayment of loan c) Misreporting of income Rs.61,50,000/- 2.2 Against this, assessee went in appeal