“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

M/S. Smb Constructions, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangaluru

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

ITA 46/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms.Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.V.Parithivel, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194Section 194ISection 234A

being the rental income received by the appellant under the head “Income from House Property” treated as unexplained receipt under the head “Income from Other sources” without noticing that the appellant had provided copy of the lease deed and computation of income along with the appeal memo showing ... towards rent on the premises let out. She further submitted that the Revenue Authorities were not justified in treating the rent as income from other sources without noticing that the assessee had provided copy of the lease deed and computation of income along with the appeal memo. The learned

Ge Hydro France, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 2086/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 44B

bring to tax income of Rs.96,45,476 received on account of FTS, not appreciating that the same constituted Income from Other Sources and was already offered to tax in the return of income. 15. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in making the aforesaid

Ge Hydro France, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 2085/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 44B

Mayank Kishor Tejura, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in the manner indicated above

ITA 3777/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Us In The Following Manner:- 1.Overseas Impex Pvt. Ltd (Oipl) Was A Tenant Of A Residential Flat Being Flat No. 15, 4Th Floor, Park View Building, Little Gibbs Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai - 400 006 Since 1965. The Company Had Been The Tenant By Way Of Leave & License Agreement Dated 1-5-1965 Between Mr. Amrit Sagar Puri (Landlord) & The Company (Tenant).

Section 143(3)Section 54F

rights. 4. However, the ld. AO held that the amount of Rs.75,00,000/- is taxable in the hands of the assessee as ‘income from other sources’. The reason being that assessee has received this amount not on account of surrender of transfer of tenancy rights as assessee was never ... qualified as salary, House Property Income or Business Income. As such, the compensation received by the assessee has to be characterized as Income from Other Sources and taxed accordingly. As a result of this, the claim for exemption of the said income u/s. 54F does not arise at all. Penalty

Balaji Infrastructure & Development Co., Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1616/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalbalaji Infrastructure & Development Company Limited, 6Th Floor, New Excelsior Building, A. K. Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aaacb8155C ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-2(1) (1), R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sujay Waikul, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivas, Ld. DR

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 24Section 250Section 271(1)Section 32(1)Section 57

case and in laws, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in charging income of Rs. 1, 20, 00,000/- under the head "Income from Other Sources" as against under the head "Income from House Property" as claimed by the appellant, and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary ... Without Prejudice to the above, the learned AO having treated income of Rs. 1, 20, 00,000/- charged under the head Income from Other Sources ought to have allowed the expenses of Rs. 23, 21,192/- under section 57 and not doing so is wrong and contrary to the facts

Kirankumar Amrutlal Patel, Mehsana vs. The CIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 459/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

appellant has stated the facts in column no. 11 of Form No. 35 as under: "My self is earn salary income, agriculture income, income from other sources and business income from Gujarat Trading co return of income declared according. filed return on dt. 22.08.2018. The addition made of Rs.6

Ajayshree Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1427/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1427/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ajayshree Gramin Bigar Sheti The National Faceless Sahakari Patasanstha Maryadit, V Assessment At Post Murum, Tal Baramati, S Centre(Nfac), Delhi. Dist Pune, Pune – 412306. Pan: Aaaaa9964E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Manoj R Jain – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 06/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Dated 30.10.2023 For A.Y.2018-19. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.86,59,612/-Made By The Ao On Account Of Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed By The Appellant U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act Without Considering The Detailed Submissions Made By The Appellant & Without Passing Any Speaking Order, On The Ground That Only The Income Earned By Providing Credit Facility To Its Members Be Treated Ajayshree Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patasanstha Maryadit [A]

Section 143(3)Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

covered u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and as the interest income is not operational income the same be treated as income from other sources not eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Act without appreciating the submissions given by the appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances

Satyam Print House, Mumbai vs. Additional /Joint/ Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 2898/MUM/2023[ 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2024

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan

Section 270ASection 50CSection 56(2)(x)

waive the interest and penalty amount. 12. Since the assessee has agreed for the proposed addition of INR 35,00,000/- as income from other sources, the assessment is completed as under: xx xx” Further, the fact that the Assessee had paid the additional tax 9. liability in two installments

ACIT, Circle CC 15, New Delhi vs. Alka Mendiratta, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

ITA 1864/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 69

During the year under consideration, the assessee has derived salary income from M/s Globe Group of Companies, income from House Property and ‘Income from Other Sources’ which includes interest from Savings bank/interest on FDR/post office MIS. 5. During the course of search and seizure action at the residence of Shri

ACIT, CC-15, New Delhi vs. Yash Pal Mendiratta, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

ITA 1863/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 69

Anand Urban Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 137/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: CA Santosh B GarudFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

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

./2024 earned on investment made in other Cooperative societies/ Nationalized/Scheduled Bank by the appellant is liable to be taxed under the Head of Income from Other Sources and not Income from Profits and Gains from Business/Profession which is eligible for deduction u/s. 80(P)(a)(i). 2) On the facts

Muthoot Agri Projects and Hospitalities P. Ltd, Maharastra vs. ACIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 153/COCH/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 57

business, i.e., after its commencement. Two, interest on surplus funds for the time being was not liable to be capitalized but assessed as income from other sources u/s.56. It was accordingly assessed at Rs.231.62 lac, and confirmed in first appeal for the same reason, both the assessing and the first

N. Gunasekar, Salem vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 1141/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1141/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri N. Gunasekar, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 196-C, Anna Nagar, Shyamala Income Tax, Nivas, Kannankurichi, No. 3, Gandhi Circle 1(1), Road, Salem 636 008. Salem. [Pan:Ajopg3410B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, Dated 27.07.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 16 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed Detailed Petition For Condonation Of The Delay In Support Of An Affidavit. By Referring To The Above Condonation Petition, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That 2

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

dated 24.03.2014 by assessing total income of the assessee at ₹.5,83,25,354/- after making disallowance of income from other sources 3 I.T.A. No.1141/Chny/23 and brought to tax. On appeal, since there was no response from the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal on merits and dismissed

M/S Crown Milk Specialties Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. JCIT, OSD, Cl-4(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 250/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 250Section 43B

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has wrongly erred in making addition of Rs. 1,02,735/- under Income from Other Sources without issuing notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. 9. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, leave or amend any ground of appeal before

Prahlad Dutt Lata, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-35(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 265/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 265/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Prahlad Dutt Lata Income Tax Officer, Ward – Vs 35(1), Kolkata Urvashi Apartment 3, Hunger Ford Street Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aaxpl1559J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/03/2024 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 Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 13/08/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 86 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Reason For The Said Delay Is Mainly On Account Of Old Age Of The Assessee & The Delay On The Part Of The Person Who Received The Envelope Sent From The Office Of The Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Required To Be Handed Over To The Assessee. On Perusal Of The Affidavit, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154Section 234BSection 250

expenditure paid at Rs. 3,01,034/-. Perusal of the impugned order shows that in para 7, details have been mentioned about the income from other sources. In this list, there is interest income on loan at Rs.42,411/- and bank interest of Rs.6,036/- has been mentioned. The other

Kathiresan (HUF), Sivakasi vs. ITO - Ward - 2, Virudhunagar

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 759/CHNY/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)- Ld. Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 68

assessee in the captioned appeal is the fact that the income of Rs.10 Lacs as offered by the assessee under the head ‘income from other sources’ has been held to be unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and the same has been subjected to higher rate of tax of 60%. Having ... perusal of orders of lower authorities, it could be seen that though the assessee has disclosed income of Rs.10 Lacs under the head ‘income from other sources’, it has miserably failed to prove the source of the same. The assessee merely stated that it received brokerage in cash. However

Reserve Bank Cooperative Society Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 10/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

assessing the interest receipt of Rs.5,17,43,725/-received from investment made with other cooperative bank under the head income from other sources by (a) not accepting the contention of assessee that the said interest receipt is attributable to the activity of providing credit facility to its members eligible ... entire interest income from FDR’s, amounting to Rs.5,17,43,725/- has been added to the return income under the head income from other sources u/s 56 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the addition by observing

Mr. Shashi Bhartia, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 230/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) noted that there is a delay of 2 years 5 months for filing the appeal which was to be filed by 23.01.2020, however it was filed on 14.6.2022. No sufficient reason was explained by the assessee for the inordinate delay in filing the

For Appellant: Smt. Ishita Bhaumik, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139Section 147

received a sum of Rs.9,59,115, however assessee has declared income of Rs.4,82,450. Therefore, the difference was considered as income from other sources. Accordingly income was computed of Rs.23,24,252. 3. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals ... been credited of Rs.55,516. The assessee is deriving income from house property of Rs.1,02,894 and income from other sources is reported by Corporation Bank in Form 26AS of Rs.4,79,557 and assessee has claimed deduction under Chapter VIA of Rs.1,00,000. This is the only

Anugraha Vividhoddesha Sahakari Sangha, Belthangady vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

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

ITA 219/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 18Section 80P(2)(a)

business and hence eligible for claim of deduction. 4. The Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.42,00,202/- as income from other sources without providing an opportunity to the Appellant. 5. The case laws relied by the CIT(A) are distinguishable. 6. Without prejudice, the addition

Shri Amritlal Futarmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-4(1)(3) (Erstwhile the ACIT, Circle-18(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3781/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy, Am

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

income from salary, business income, short term capital gain (STCG for short), long term capital gain (LTCG for short) and income from other sources. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee