“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. Hanumangarh Kendriya Sahakari Bank Ltd., Hanumangarh vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Bikaner

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

ITA 68/JODH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

EARN INTEREST/ I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 3 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 DIVIDEND INCOME AND CAN SHOW THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(d) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. FURTHER MORE IT WAS ALSO BEING HELD THAT ... eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. In assessment, the ld. AO disallowed the deduction and treated interest and dividend income from other sources and added back with the total income of the assessee. Here is the yearwise chart for disallowance of interest and dividend which

Raj Kumar Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3082/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 31/03/2018 sustained the disallowance to the extent of Rs.24,96,935/- made by the AO on account of expenditure claimed by the assessee u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Raj Kumar Sharma vs. ACIT

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

expenditure which is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of earning income chargeable under the head income from other sources, is allowed as deduction from the said income of the assessee. Thus, it can be concluded that there is a direct nexus between the income earned and the expenditure

The Athani Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Athani vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Belagavi

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 90/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Chetan ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Admittedly, the interest income of Rs.3,27,868/- was received from the following :- 4 ITA.No.90/PAN./2023 S. No. Income from other sources Amount 1 BDCC Bank Dividend Rs.52,471 2 AXIS Bank Interest received Rs.28,768 3 BDCC Bank Interest on FD deposits Rs.1,74,039 4 Interest

Economical Credit & Construction Co. Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 8(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6888/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, SR. DR

Section 234B

facts and circumstances of the case, erred in assessing the income of the Appellant at Rs. 1,06,70,000/ - as income from undisclosed sources against returned income of Rs. 28,85,510/-arbitrarily without appreciating the Appellate submissions and evidences brought on record. 2. That the Learned ... facts and circumstances of the case, erred in assessing the income of the Appellant at Rs. 1,06,70,000/ - as income from undisclosed sources against returned income of Rs. 28,85,510/-arbitrarily without appreciating the Appellate submissions and evidences brought on record. He further submitted that the Learned

ACIT Circle, Karnal vs. Best Foods Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5365/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaasstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Best Foods Limited, Income Tax, C/O. R.C.Rai & Associates, 203, Circle, Karnal Akash Deep Building, 26A, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan : Aaccb2825P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271ASection 80I

group which was voluntarily offered as additional income however, Ld. AO alleged assessee has shown the surrendered income of Rs. 44 crores as income from other sources. Accordingly, issued notice u/s 271AAA of the Act. Ld. AO was not satisfied with the explanation of source and manner of earning ... assessee. The Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(Appeals) have not brought any material on record to substantiate that the assessee has earned any income from other sources. This is admitted fact that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB, The contention of the Ld. AR of the assessee that

Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tahnee Heights Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the R

ITA 2215/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita No. 2213, 2214 & 2215/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18 Ito-19(3)(1), Tahnee Heights Co-Operative Piramal Chamber, Room No. Housing Society Ltd., Vs. 405, Lalbaug, Mumbai- Ground Floor, Tahnee Heights, 400012. 66 Nepean Sea Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Aaaat 6303 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Samir Saraiya, Ca Revenue By : Mr. P.D. Chogule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 05/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Samir Saraiya, CAFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule, CIT-DR

Section 80P(2)(d)

short term deposit would be in the business and invested in the short term deposit would be assessable under the head "income from other sources" where the Co assessable under the head "income from other sources" where the Co assessable under the head "income from other sources" where ... respect of its income assessable as business income and of its income assessable as business income and not as income from other sources if it carries on business of the banking not as income from other sources if it carries on business of the banking not as income from other

Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tahnee Heights Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the R

ITA 2214/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016

For Appellant: Mr. Samir Saraiya, CAFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule, CIT-DR

Section 80P(2)(d)

Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tahnee Heights Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the R

ITA 2213/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2014-2015

For Appellant: Mr. Samir Saraiya, CAFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule, CIT-DR

Section 80P(2)(d)

Sunil Bardia, Rajnandgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 254/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 254/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sunil Bardia Vs Income Tax Officer C/O. Bardia Niwas, Sadar Bazar, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Adfpb7851A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10 /10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 57Section 69A

case are that the assessee is an individual derives income under the head income from house property and profit and gains of business income from other sources, had filed return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 30.03.2018 declaring total income at Rs.4,78,990/-. Subsequently the case of the assessee ... Rs.26,41,032/- were claimed as expenditure u/s.57 of the Act and thereby showed loss of Rs.1,91,976/- under the head “income from other sources”. The assessee was requested to furnish details of interest paid account containing details for each party to which the assessee has furnished details

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. H K Designs (India) LLP, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2050/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10A

course of its business and also inter earned by it from the staff loans and such interest income would not be taxable as 'Income from other Sources' under Section 56 of the Act. The incidental activity of parking of Surplus Funds with the Banks advancing of staff loans by such

The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur vs. Sri.K.P. Johny, Thrissur

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

Ittoobp, as also in immovable properties. The assessee, in response, returned an income of Rs.10,00,000 on 21.08.2017, as income from other sources. In fact, earlier, vide a statement u/s.131(1) of the Act dated 16.12.2016, extracted in the assessment order itself, the assessee admitted to running a provision ... prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", namely:— …………………………… (vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after

Sri.K.P. Johny, Thrissur vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 206/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

M/S Shankar Rice & General Mills, Moga vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Moga

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 205/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan GargFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

such deemed income is not income from salary, house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from ’other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income ... explained or satisfactorily explained. Therefore, in these cases, the source not being known, such deemed income will not fall even under the head 'Income from other sources'. Therefore, the corresponding deductions, which are applicable to the incomes under any of these various heads, will not be attracted in case

Saket Agarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-58(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 494/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is an individual and has income from business and profession, income from capital gains and income from other sources. The assessee filed return of income for AY 2011-12 declaring total income of Rs. 67,81,160/-. The ITR was processed

Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 35(4), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 5897/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 143(3)

erred in sustaining an addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- on account of agricultural income by treating the same as income from undisclosed sources. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law, the Ld CIT (A)has erred in sustaining the addition ... agricultural income cannot be accepted. Considering the above facts, addition made by the AO at Rs.15 lacs is hereby confirmed treating it as income from other sources.” 5. Against this order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the records. None appeared

Shri Sudhir Kapoorchand Gandhi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(3), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 309/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Sudhir Kapoorchand Gandhi, A.C.I.T., C/O-Ateet Gandhi, 3, Shepway Circle-2(3), Vs. Bungalow, Off Juhu Tara Road, Surat, Azad Lane, Juhu Koliwada, Near

Section 254(1)Section 41Section 41(1)

Sudhir Kapoorchand Gandhi Vs ACIT added to the income of assessee. The Assessing Officer also made addition of income from other sources of Rs. 23,336/- without discussing anything in the assessment order and after granting deduction of Rs. 1,60,000/- under Chapter VIA and allowing

Girdhari Lal Meena, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 118/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Gogra (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144(1)

computation of income the assessee has declared business 3 Girdhari Lal Meena vs. ITO income of Rs. 3,07,129/- and income from other sources of Rs. 84,010/- after claiming current year loss of Rs. 2,00,000/- and claimed deduction of Rs. 49,467/- under chapter VIA, total

J S Exim Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Circle-13(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 854/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Mr. Amol Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 68

engaged in the business of letting of commercial property and deriving income under various heads viz; business income, income from house property and income from other sources’. For the Assessment Year 2013-14 in question, the assessee-company filed return of income declaring total income at Rs.4

Naval Kishore Daga, Jodhpur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/JODH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur03 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 57

issued intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 01.06.2019, making addition of Rs. 2,05,303/- under the head “income from other sources” on account of disallowance of interest expenditure and considering interest income as per Form 26AS. The assessee filed rectification application on 28.03.2019 however ... Bengalaru issued Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, making addition of Rs. 2,05,303/- under the head "income from other sources" on account of disallowance of Interest expenditure and considering Interest Income as per Form 26-AS. The appellant filed rectification application on 28-03-2019 however

Alsid Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT/ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1204/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Ms Indira Adakil

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

challenged the disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,81,560/- and Rs.1,90,094/- being the income from other sources (AYs.2020-21 & 2021-22) Alsid Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. DCIT/ACIT-CPC with regard to the interest earned on fixed deposit with Co-operative ... disallowed the said deduction as not allowable. It is observed that the assessee has claimed the interest income under the head ‘income from other sources’. The lower authorities have rejected the claim of the assessee for the reason that the assessee is entitled to deduction on interest earned