← All Phrases

“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

Janseva Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-17, Mumbai

ITA 1225/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhjanseva Co-Operative Vs. Pcit-17 Credit Society Limited Room No. 120, 1 St Floor, 408, Maker Bhavan No. 3, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To 21, New Marine Lines, C-43, G Block, Bandra Mumbai – 400 020 Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaaj7811P Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Tanzil Padvekar Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor Date Of Hearing 25.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit-17, Mumbai, Dated 30.03.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-17 Erred In Passing The Impugned Order Under Section 263 Of The Act By Invoking Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Jurisdiction. Hence, The Impugned Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Bad In Law & Without Meeting Jurisdictional Requirement As Twin Mandatory Conditions Are Not Fulfilled For Invoking Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-17 Has Erred In Relying On The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Totgars Co-Operative Sale Society V/S. Income Tax

For Appellant: Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Ankush Kapoor
Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 8o

held that interest on deposit P a g e | 5 Janseva Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. VS. PCIT-17 was not business income but income from other sources and the society was not entitled to such deduction u/s 80P(2). Therefore, the AO was directed the to frame the assessment ... respect of interest on deposit without proper application of provision of Act as interest on deposit was not business income but income from other sources and the assessee society was not entitled to said deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Therefore, in view of the fact

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle-2), Raipur vs. Shri Vikas Kumar Fatehramka, Pandri

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 77/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.77/Rpr/2022 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) The Assistant Commissioner – Shri Vikas Kumar Fatehramka Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Vs Prop. Goyal Sales, Central Circle -2, Raipur. Behind Mata Garage, Near Jai Bhole Complex, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Pan No. : Aadpf 2412 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma. Sr. निर्धारितीती की ओर से /Assessee By : Dr Shri Ravi Agrawal, Ca सुनवाई ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/08/2023

For Appellant: DR Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma. Sr
Section 115Section 115BSection 133A

stock found during the course of survey proceedings, have offered tax in accordance with provisions of section 115BBE of the Act, showing his income from other sources, has shifted its stand, submitted a revised computation moving the undisclosed income surrendered under the head of income “Income from other sources ... Ld.Sr. DR that, in absence of any explanation about the source of investment in stock by the assessee, income should be treated as income from undisclosed sources and therefore, the same should be chargeable under the head “Income From Other Sources” and not income from Business. 5. On the contrary