“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

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

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5604/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

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

Mmtc Ltd vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1)

The appeal is allowed, with aforesaid consequences, as directed in ground wise findings

ITA 1722/DEL/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Mmtc Ltd., Scope Vs. Dcit, Complex, Circle-5(1) Core 1,7, Institutional Area, New Delhi Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003 Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80Section 80H

upholding the stand of AO that interest income of Rs.37,50,64,281/- and dividend income (MTPL) of Rs.97,70,591/- are “income from other sources” thereby denying the deduction admissible u/s 80 HHC. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and in facts of the case ... sales for it customers as business income and the interest earned on advances giving to the staff was directed to be classified as income from other sources. The interest for Rs. 16.62 crores earned from bank was directed to be reassessed in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi

Mr. Nisar Ahmed Sayed, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-22(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 593/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, Ms. Aasifa Khan Submitted That Before The Ld. Ao As Well As Ld. Cit(A) Assessee Could Not Appear Because The Notices Issued On The Email Of The Assessee & She Was Not Aware Of Any Such E-Mail Sent As She Is Not An Educated Person. On Merits She Submitted That Assessee Had Purchased Property I.E. A Small Shop At Shop No.3, Ground Floor, Admeasuring Area 190 Sq.Ft Built Up, Bearing C.S.No.1354, Mahim Division Situated At Cadle Castle Co- Operative Housing Society Ltd, Veer Savarkar Road, Mahim, Mumbai – 400 016. Alongwith Another Co-Owner Shri Siraj Ahmed Merchant Had Purchased A Shop Premise For A Consideration Of Rs.20,00,000/- & Both The Co-Owners Have Paid Rs.10,00,000/- Each. However, The Stamp Value Of The Said Property Was Determined At Rs.37,04,000/- As Mentioned In The Deed Of Transfer.

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

appeal, assessee has challenged the exparte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and on merits addition of Rs.8,52,000/- as ‘income from other sources’ and lastly, the 2 Mr. Nisar Ahmed Sayed validity of reopening u/s.148 as ld. AO has not given any reasons for reopening the case ... owner and has paid 50%, half of the amount i.e. Rs.8,52,000/- was brought to tax under the head ‘income from other sources’. 5. She further submitted that the reason for purchasing property lesser than the circle rate was that the property was under litigation and was occupied

Satish Anant Bhadri, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 949/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri Kishore ChaudhariFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande

Section 144Section 147Section 2(14)Section 54F

after making an addition of INR 2 ITA No.950/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 44,91,793/-, being accretion value, under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before the CIT(A). 4. Before the CIT(A), the Appellant contended that the acquisition of LIC Market ... defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The accretion in the value of the policy is, therefore, liable to tax as ‘Income from Other Sources’. Therefore, there were no capital gains during the relevant previous year in respect of which deduction under Section 54F could be claimed

DCIT, Circle 16(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2017-

ITA 1047/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ParekhFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 90

issued and served on the assessee. During the year, the assessee has declared income under the head income from business or profession and income from other sources. During the assessment proceedings, on perusal of the return of income filed by the assessee, it was observed that the assessee has claimed

DCIT, Cir 16(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2017-

ITA 1046/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ParekhFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 90

Iris Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1001/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ishraq M. ContractorFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

available only against the income earned under the head profits and gains of business and not against income under the head Income from other sources. The PCIT ought to have appreciated that the appellant has claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(d) and that there is no requirement under section

Varun Batra, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 3175/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3175/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Varun Batra बिधम/ National Faceless Appeal Flat 5, 5Th Floor, La Mer, Centre (Nfac), Delhi. Vs. Mistry Park, Kadeshwari Temple Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400040. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aezpb9157L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2023 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. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 23.08.2022 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Though, The Matter Was Listed For Seven (7) Times, No One Represented/Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, We Find That Written Submission Has Been Filed On Behalf Of The Assessee. Therefore, After Hearing The Ld. Dr & After Perusal Of The Written Submission, We Proceed To Dispose Off This Appeal. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao By Which The Assessee’S Claim Of Loss Of Rs.15,23,598/- To Be Set-Off Against The Income From Other Heads (Apart From Salary) Was Disallowed By The Ao.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. AR)

Section 2Section 43(5)

extent of Rs.14,41,815/- has been set-off with the following income (i) Income from house property Rs.84,000, (ii) Income from other sources Rs.13,51,033/- and (iii) Income from capital gains Rs.6,782/- total of Rs.14,41,815/-. The AO after going through the TAR and other

Omm Shree Realcon Pvt. Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 97/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabco 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 28 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

well as dividend income and entire income was shown under head 'Income from business and profession'. The Assessing Officer treated dividend income as income from other sources but at same time allowed business losses of earlier years to be set-off against said dividend income as well. The Commissioner, while

Ai-Yaseen Trading Co.P.Ltd, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Meerut

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

ITA 6244/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

fair market value for issue of shares in view of provision u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of I.T. Act. 1961 be not treated income from other sources. 5. In response to the said query, the assessee filed reply vide submission dated 15/02/2016 with the stating that the Fair Market Value ... remaining sum of Rs.48,45,000/- was treated as amount received in excess of fair market value and consequentially brought to tax as income from other sources in terms of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 6. This action of the Ld. AO is upheld

Munni Devi Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward- 1(4), Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar SharmaFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 148

case the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the action of the AO in assessing Agriculture Income Rs. 330460/- as Income from other sources and in further enhancing the same to Rs. 380460/- against that of Rs. 330460/- assessed by the AO. 3. Under the facts and circumstances ... against that of Rs. 8245366/- made by the AO towards cash/Cheque/DD Deposited in Bank Account of the assessee holding the same as Income from undisclosed Sources.” 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee filed original return of income on 31.07.2009 declaring Agriculture income

Sanjay Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 44/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.MonishaChourdhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 3Section 44A

Income Tax Act 1961, lays down that income chargeable under the head "Profit and gains of business or profession" or "Income from other sources" shall, subject to the accounting standards notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette, be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system

Mohammed Siraj, Jhunjhunu vs. ITO, Ward-1, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 109/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234BSection 50CSection 54B

SHRI MOHAMMED SIRAJ VS ITO, WARD -1, JHUNJJHUNU declaring total income at Rs.1,68,450/- under the head income from other sources. A notice u/s 148 had been issued served to assessee 26-03-2019. In compliance to notice u/s 148, the assessee filed ITR on 19-09-2019 declaring

Chandra Shekhar Tiwari, Flat No. B-9, D-224, Tanwar Residency, Tulsi Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 101/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)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

M/S Usha Vinod Parekh (Lr of Late Shri Vinodkumar Sheshmal Parekh), Mumbai vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-22(1) (Erstwhile the Asstt. CIT, Circle-21(3), Mumbai

ITA 563/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri M B SanghviFor Respondent: Ms. Naina Krishnakumar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

treated as Unexplained Credits u/s 68 and the said amount of Rs. 16,09,340/- is brought to tax under the head income from Other sources”. (Emphasis Supplied) 11.9. On perusal of the above, we note that the Assessing Officer had concluded that the investment

Ucb India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 8(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1081/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234B

equivalent to value of freebees enjoyed by the aforesaid medical practitioner or professional associations is also taxable as business income or income from other sources as the case may be depending on the facts of each case. It is noticed from the perusal of P & L a/c, a break

Bipin Bihari Mohanty, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT Circle -5(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 51/CTK/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 145(3)Section 148

assessment year 2012- 2013 and Rs.37,73,624/- for the assessment year 2013-2014. The assessee had also shown income under the head income from other sources representing the bank interest. It was the submission that in the course of assessment, the AO in para 4.2 of his order ... u/s.131 of the Act in the course of survey. He further added the differential between income offered by the assessee under the head income from other sources and the income estimated in the statement recorded u/s.131 of the Act. Further the ld. AO disallowed the entire expenses relating to profession

Bipin Bihari Mohanty, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT Circle -5(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 50/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 145(3)Section 148

Meena Singhal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 43(6), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1550/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Meena Singhal, Vs Ito, C-3/52,Rajashthali Apartment, Ward-43(6), Pitampura, New Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Acaps1872L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pranshu Singhal, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2023

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

income tax return filed by the assessee on 23.05.2012 declaring total income of Rs.14,52,020/- from Salary, house property, capital gains, and income from other sources. The case of the assessee was re-opened for scrutiny u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the reason

DCIT Central Circle-32, Delhi vs. Vinod Kumar Bajaj, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1087/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshdcit, Vs. Shri Vinod Kumar Bajaj, Ae-17, 2Nd Floor, Tagore Central Circle-32, New Delhi Garden, New Delhi-110027 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Acopb4322L

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manvendra Goel, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 153Section 153A

activity and the nature of income which included income from salary of Rs. 60,000/-, business profit of Rs. 8,01,986/- and income from other sources of Rs. 74,246/-. The assessee also filed reply vide letter dated 14.12.2019 and submitted that political survey work is not done