← 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

Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur

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

ITA 143/RPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. Executive Director (Fin.), Csptcl, Second Floor, Sldc Building, Cseb Office Campus, Danginiya Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5773E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

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.” 36. Significantly, the same Finance Act, 1987 also introduced provisos to Section 43B, through amendment (clause 10 of the Finance Bill). The memorandum

Tab India Granites Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 136/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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.” XXXXXX 44. There is no doubt that in Alom Extrusions, this court did consider the impact of deletion of second proviso to Section

Dhabriya Polywood Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 122/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani,CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl.CIT
Section 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.” XXXXXX 44. There is no doubt that in Alom Extrusions, this court did consider the impact of deletion of second proviso to Section

S.S.Flexi Pack Private Limited, Raipur vs. ACIT-Circle-1(1), Raipur

ITA 97/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.97/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 S.S. Flexi Pack Private Limited Near Barkha Hotel, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aahcs3562K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

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.” 36. Significantly, the same Finance Act, 1987 also introduced provisos to Section 43B, through amendment (clause 10 of the Finance Bill). The memorandum

Protech Exim (India) P Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1089/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1089/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Protech Exim (India) Pvt. बिधम/ Acit, Cpc Ltd. Bangaluru. Vs. C/O G. P. Mehta & Co. Cas, 807, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp3317N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G. P. Mehta Revenue By: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 16.03.2023 For Ay. 2019-20. 2. The Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature. 3. The Ground No. 2 Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Denying Set-Off Of Business Loss Of Rs.38,487/- Against Other Head Of Income For The Same Assessment Year. 4. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 On 21.10.2019 Declaring Taxable Income Of Rs.5,83,870/.- The Return Was Processed By Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.15,87,350/- By Making Disallowance Of Rs.10,03,480/- Out Of Which, Ground No. 2 Emanates I.E. Disallowance Of Rs.38,481/- Which Action Of Cpc Has Been Confirmed By Ld.

For Appellant: Shri G. P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)
Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 71

action of the CPC disallowing Rs.38,421/-. 5. It is noted that the assessee has shown income from house property as well as income from other sources (income from house property to the tune of Rs.3,34,643/- and income from other sources of Rs.2,87,647/-). As per section ... computation under the head of business income is loss of Rs.38,421/- and the assessee has shown income from house property and income from other sources. And the Ld. DR could not point out from the relevant section of the law as to any such restrictions to claim the loss

Dy C.I.T.Central Cir-6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Surendra B.Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue for the assessment years 2014-15

ITA 2434/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from salary, rental income, capital gains, and income from other sources. The search and seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 09/04/2015. During the course ... Surendra Jiwrajka is noted to have acceded to the Investigating Officer‟s proposal of offering the capital gain derived in these shares as income from other sources and forego the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act, (as the SEBI had suspected the assessee of manipulation in the prices

Dy. Citcent. Cir -6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Surendra B.Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue for the assessment years 2014-15

ITA 2433/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from salary, rental income, capital gains, and income from other sources. The search and seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 09/04/2015. During the course ... Surendra Jiwrajka is noted to have acceded to the Investigating Officer‟s proposal of offering the capital gain derived in these shares as income from other sources and forego the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act, (as the SEBI had suspected the assessee of manipulation in the prices

Dy. CIT Cent Cir -6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Surendra B. Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue for the assessment years 2014-15

ITA 2432/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from salary, rental income, capital gains, and income from other sources. The search and seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 09/04/2015. During the course ... Surendra Jiwrajka is noted to have acceded to the Investigating Officer‟s proposal of offering the capital gain derived in these shares as income from other sources and forego the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act, (as the SEBI had suspected the assessee of manipulation in the prices

Dy. CIT Cent Cir -6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Surendra B.Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue for the assessment years 2014-15

ITA 2431/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from salary, rental income, capital gains, and income from other sources. The search and seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 09/04/2015. During the course ... Surendra Jiwrajka is noted to have acceded to the Investigating Officer‟s proposal of offering the capital gain derived in these shares as income from other sources and forego the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act, (as the SEBI had suspected the assessee of manipulation in the prices

Tata Aig Life Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3557/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 263Section 44

this Act relating to the computation of income chargeable under the head "Interest on securities", "Income from house property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B, the profits and gains of any business of insurance, including any such business carried ... also the provisions relating to the computation of income chargeable under the head "Interest on securities", "Income from house property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources". 14. On perusal of the original order of assessment u/s.143(3) we notice that the Assessing Officer in the original assessment has made

Tata Aig Life Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3556/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 263Section 44

this Act relating to the computation of income chargeable under the head "Interest on securities", "Income from house property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B, the profits and gains of any business of insurance, including any such business carried ... also the provisions relating to the computation of income chargeable under the head "Interest on securities", "Income from house property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources". 14. On perusal of the original order of assessment u/s.143(3) we notice that the Assessing Officer in the original assessment has made

Aman Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 71(1), Delhi

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

ITA 267/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. DR
Section 10

which is contrary to the fact that the appellant wife was also having income from business and Profession of Rs.2,61,000/-and income from other sources of Rs.40,841/- apart from rental income during the year under consideration and therefore having independent source of income. 2.2 That ... which is contrary to the fact that the appellant wife was also having income from business and Profession of Rs.2,61,000/-and income from other sources of Rs.40,841/- apart from rental income during the year under consideration and therefore having independent source of income. The ld. AR further

JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Nm Buildwell Pvt Ltd, Noida

ITA 994/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

account of unexplained investment, unexplained cash credit, and income from other sources. Aggrieved, appellant is in appeal before me. 3. M/s. N.M Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. is a Private incorporated on 13" Dec. 2007. It is classified as Non-govt Company and is registered at Registrar of ITA No. 994/Del/2019 ... date was fixed on 13/10/2016 to make compliance and furnish the details as called for.” 5. The A.O made additions of income from other sources and cash credit, unexplained investment and unexplained cash credits, however, the Id. First Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the assessee observing

Jindal Construction, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 32(2), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 9535/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

understood the nature of transaction and made the addition arbitrarily under the head income from other sources of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The appellant received an interest free security deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/- which is to be refunded to the developer after the completion of the project ... Revenue opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that it is a clear cut case of having income from other sources as the security deposit was received during F.Y. 2003-04 and even after lapse of more than seven years the security deposit

Mokul Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5610/DEL/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. C. Swain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 250(6)

deleted. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding the sales of Rs. 9,94,060/- as „income from other sources‟ ignoring that the same was duly recorded in the books of account, duly declared in the audited financial statements, return of income ... account have been rejected by the ld AO. 6.1 The ld AR submitted that although sales of the Assessee were considered as income from other source but expenses were disallowed. It is submitted by the ld AR on behalf of the Assessee that it is not the case where

Mokul Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5609/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. C. Swain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 250(6)

deleted. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding the sales of Rs. 9,94,060/- as „income from other sources‟ ignoring that the same was duly recorded in the books of account, duly declared in the audited financial statements, return of income ... account have been rejected by the ld AO. 6.1 The ld AR submitted that although sales of the Assessee were considered as income from other source but expenses were disallowed. It is submitted by the ld AR on behalf of the Assessee that it is not the case where

Mokul Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5608/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. C. Swain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 250(6)

deleted. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding the sales of Rs. 9,94,060/- as „income from other sources‟ ignoring that the same was duly recorded in the books of account, duly declared in the audited financial statements, return of income ... account have been rejected by the ld AO. 6.1 The ld AR submitted that although sales of the Assessee were considered as income from other source but expenses were disallowed. It is submitted by the ld AR on behalf of the Assessee that it is not the case where

Mokul Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5607/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. C. Swain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 250(6)

deleted. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding the sales of Rs. 9,94,060/- as „income from other sources‟ ignoring that the same was duly recorded in the books of account, duly declared in the audited financial statements, return of income ... account have been rejected by the ld AO. 6.1 The ld AR submitted that although sales of the Assessee were considered as income from other source but expenses were disallowed. It is submitted by the ld AR on behalf of the Assessee that it is not the case where

Mokul Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5606/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. C. Swain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 250(6)

deleted. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding the sales of Rs. 9,94,060/- as „income from other sources‟ ignoring that the same was duly recorded in the books of account, duly declared in the audited financial statements, return of income ... account have been rejected by the ld AO. 6.1 The ld AR submitted that although sales of the Assessee were considered as income from other source but expenses were disallowed. It is submitted by the ld AR on behalf of the Assessee that it is not the case where

Mokul Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5605/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. C. Swain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 250(6)

deleted. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding the sales of Rs. 9,94,060/- as „income from other sources‟ ignoring that the same was duly recorded in the books of account, duly declared in the audited financial statements, return of income ... account have been rejected by the ld AO. 6.1 The ld AR submitted that although sales of the Assessee were considered as income from other source but expenses were disallowed. It is submitted by the ld AR on behalf of the Assessee that it is not the case where