“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

Gillette India Limited, Spa-65A, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, District- Alwar vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 313/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. ParwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194Section 195Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Shri Ravi Ramakrishnan, Mumbai vs. International Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid directions

ITA 646/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.646/मुं/2023 (िन.व.2014-15) Ravi Ramakrishnan, 205/404, Khar Rose Minar Building, 4Th Floor, 10Th Road, Khar (West, Mumbai 400 052 Pan: Anwpr-2793-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. International Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Room No.1729, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Anushree Gupta "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anil Sant सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 10/01/2023 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act], For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds In Appeal: “ The Following Grounds Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law, The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. Ao') Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) / Directions Passed By The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp') Under 2 Section 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act1) Is Bad, Both In The Eye Of Law & On The Facts On Account Of:

For Appellant: Ms. Anushree GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

confirming the variation proposed by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs.45,62,270 under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as income from other sources and has also erred in invoking the amended provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act for years prior

Jk Investment, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2013/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhjk Investment Vs. Dcit-20(2) 202-B, Shreeji Shopping Mumbai. Arcade, M. G. Road, Borivali (East) Mumbai-400066 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aagfj3757K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri. Prakash Kishinchandani

Section 143(2)Section 24(1)(a)Section 250

rental receipt for amenities). The AO was of the view that rent received from the amenities is to be taxed income from other source. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 5,15,580/- claim as deduction u/s 24(1)(a) of the Act was disallowed and added to the total income ... disallowed Rs 5,15,580/- being 30% of Rs 17,18,600/- for rent received from amenities treating the same as income from other sources. 6. During the course of appellate proceedings before me, the Ld. counsel has filed copies of following agreements:  Amenities Agreement dated 31.05.2011 executed between

Late Shri Shashi Bhushan Bajpai, Mumbai vs. ITO-23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1582/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Anurag Tripathi, Ld. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

ultimately made the addition of Rs. 46,98,063/- as revenue receipts in the form of dividend under the head “Income from other sources” by concluding as under: 3 Mrs. Rekha Nigam “During the course of assessment proceedings, the AR of the asseseee submitted the development agreement dated ... discussed above the receipt of Rs. 46,98,063/- is considered as revenue receipt in the form of dividend under the head 'Income from other Sources'. It may be noted here that no expenditure can be allowed to be deducted against the said receipt/income as the assessee has not furnished

The ACIT, Corp Circle-1(2), Kochi vs. M/S.Knowell Realtors India P. Ltd, Kochi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

ITA 193/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Santosh P. Abraham, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 268A

falling under specific heads has to be computed for the purpose of taxation in the manner provided by the appropriate section. If the income from a source falls within a specific head set out in s. 6, the fact that it may indirectly be covered by another head will ... lifts, etc., as was the case in Sultan Bros. (supra), would only be a case of a composite letting, implying business income (or income from other sources) where inseparable, for which the Hon’ble Court devised a test. In all such cases property is not being exploited as a capital

The ACIT, Corp Circle-1(2), Kochi vs. M/S.Knowell Realtors India P. Ltd, Kochi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

ITA 192/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Santosh P. Abraham, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 268A

Dushyant Singh, Satna vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Katni

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

ITA 10/JAB/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaledushyant Singh, Vs Dcit, Prop. M/S R.R. Automobiles, Circle Katni. Mukhtiyarganj, Satna, Madhya Rpadesh-485001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Azbps6247D Assessee By Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

against which the assessee claimed expenses of Rs.30,06,487/- and declared income of Rs.28,45,702/- from the commission under the head ‘income from other sources’. The 2 | P a g e Dushyant Singh vs DCIT assessee failed to produce vouchers of the expenses in support of the claim

Sh. Vikram Dhirani, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5610/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumarvikram Dhirani, Vs. Dcit, D-1039, New Friends Colony, Central Circle-7, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahtpd6528L

For Appellant: Shri. P. C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 132(4)Section 271(1)Section 271A

note that the assessee for AY 2012-13 filed written of income including the cash seized of Rs. 5 crore under the head income from other sources as other income and has also paid taxes etc. thereon. From the copy of the statement available at page 10 to 25 part

M/S Tarun Construction Company, Ward No.24, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Suratgarh vs. CPC, Bangalore/ ITO, Ward-1, Sriganganagar

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 109/JODH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR

Section 10ASection 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

income is not chargeable to tax under the head “profits and gains of business or profession” it will be assessed under the head “income from other sources.” ** ** ** 44. There is no doubt that in Alom Extrusions, this court did consider the impact of deletion of second proviso to Section

M/S Tarun Construction Company, Ward No.24, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Suratgarh vs. CPC, Bangalore/ ITO, Ward-1, Sriganganagar

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 108/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR

Section 10ASection 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

Shri Mohd Manzoor, Rajouri vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2 (3), Jammu

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

ITA 166/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar21 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 144Section 250oSection 28Section 44ASection 69A

that the benefit of cash withdrawals shall be given while making any addition: - a) ShivcharanDass vs. CIT 126 ITR 263 [1980] (Punj. &Har.) "Income from undisclosed sources—Unexplained investment— Amount disclosed by HUF under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme— Thereafter kept lying in assessee's house with his wife till her death ... assessee in any other manner, the Department was not justified in unreasonably rejecting a good explanation and adding the amount as income from undisclosed sources. b) 2022 (9) TMI 924 - ITAT AMRITSAR LATE SH. PARVEEN KOCHHAR, LEGAL HEIR KAMINI CHOUDHARY VERSUS ITO WARD-5 (4) , AMRITSAR. Unexplained Cash withdrawn

Western Drilling Contractors Private Ltd., U.P vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5), Noida

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

ITA 184/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K M Gupta, Adv. and Ms. Shruti Khimta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

earned on fixed deposits placed as margin money with Bank for issuance of bank guarantee for oil blocks, as "Income from Other Sources" on the ground that margin money placed with the bank for issuance of guarantees is not a pre- condition for set up of business of the Appellant

The DCIT, Circle-1 (1), Rajkot vs. Shri Samirbhai Maganbhai Kalariya and Others, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 185/RJT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-D.R

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 250Section 69C

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in treating undisclosed income offered during survey u/s. 133A as "income from other sources" and not an income from "profits and gains of business or profession" especially when the assessee is not having any other source of income

Rajkumari Gupta, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Statue Circle

Appeal is allowed

ITA 334/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Jain (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 3Section 48Section 50CSection 50c

shown the income of Rs. 25,000/-. on such transfer of property under the 5 Rajkumari Gupta vs. ITO head “Income from other Sources”. On this issue the ld. AO noted as under However, the assessee, in return of income filed in compliance to notice u/s 148, has reported ... corroborating the sale of property were not filed. The appellant explained that it has shown the income of the sale of property as Income from other sources. The appellant has mentioned that Rs.25,000/- was shown. However, no evidence to support the claim was filed. Hence, the Assessing Officer

Gaurav Singh, Satna vs. ITO-Ward Satna, Satna

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 90/JAB/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegaurav Singh, Ito, C/0,Rajiv Narayan Singh, Aayakar Bhawan, Parijat Niwas, Civil Lines, Satna-485001. Satna-485001. Madhya Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Appellant Respondent Pan: Bbdps8879Q

For Appellant: Shri.Sapan Usrethe,Advocate. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 90Section 91

briefs facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and derives income from house property, income from capital gains, income from other sources and also receives salary from foreign country Maynmar. The assessee has filed the return of income

M/S. M.M. Construction Company, Churu vs. ITO, Ward-2, Churu

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

ITA 386/JODH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 154

case the ld CIT (A) erred in not deciding the grounds of appeal regarding interest on FDRS as business income or income from other sources. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld CIT (A) ought to have accepted interest on FDR is part ... That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the authority below erred in holding that interest received on FDR as income from other sources, particularly when the FDRS were pledged with Government Department while obtained the contract work. 5. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted

Sanjeev Agrawal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-15, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee areallowed

ITA 1519/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-& Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain & Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

made the addition of Rs.3,03,05,713/- for which he noted as – “Bogus LTCG claimed u/s 10(38) held to be Income from Other Sources, as discussed above.” 8.6.1. From the above extraction of the impugned assessment order, it is not at all discernible whether the addition is made ... fulfilment. Thus, even this inference fails. 8.6.5. We note that while computing the total assessed income, ld. AO held the LTCG as ‘income from other sources’. It is important to take note of computation of LTCG mentioned in his show cause notice wherein full consideration stated is Rs.3

Sanjeev Agrawal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-15, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee areallowed

ITA 1518/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-& Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain & Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd, Konnur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Gokak

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 111/PAN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Sept 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay D Shirguppe, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ashwini Hosmani, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

parties or nonmembers does not quality for exemption u/s.80P. It is an admitted position that the interest so earned should be taxed as „income from other sources‟ There is a cleavage of judicial opinion among several High Courts on the issue of eligibility of this kind of income for exemption

Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd, Konnur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Gokak

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 110/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay D Shirguppe, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ashwini Hosmani, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)