“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

DCIT, Central Circle-04, New Delhi vs. Hyderabad Distilleries and Wineries P.Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 6121/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.6122/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2016-17) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Hyderabad Distilleries & Central Circle-4, Wineries Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, Bhandari House, New Delhi 91, Nehru Place, Newdelhi Pan : Aaach2679B (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. M/S. Hyderabad Distilleries & Central Circle-10(1), Wineries Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, Bhandari House, New Delhi 91, Nehru Place, Newdelhi Pan : Aaach2679B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

IMFL products paying royalty to JIL. 3. Ld. AO considered the lease rent and packaging charges derived under agreements with JIL to be income from other sources and not business income of the appellant. Further on aforesaid consideration of income form lease and packaging, certain expenses were disallowed on proportionate

Honda Access India Pvt. Ltd., Gautam Budh Nagar vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Noida

ITA 3368/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)

were issued to the appellant asking it to show cause vide a receipt of Rs. 17,04,184/- should not be treated as income from other sources and subjected to tax and the loss claimed as business loss should not be disallowed to be carried forward as business loss ... various expenses incurred by the appellant. 17. There is no denying that certain expenses would have been necessary for earning of income from other sources being the interest income on bank deposits and the exchange rate fluctuations. However, the same cannot be 20% or 15% of the expenses being incurred

Amba Tech Engineering, Bhiwadi vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)ADIT - CPC, Alwar

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

ITA 49/JPR/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2019-2020

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(iv)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 438

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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1-1, Kota vs. Shri Chandi Ram, Kota

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 662/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)

existing provisions of Income Tax Act provide that income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” or “Income from other sources”, shall be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ... revenue receipt and not a capital receipt. It was also of the opinion that the amount of interest was fully taxable as "income from other sources" and that it had to be delinked from the other trading receipts for this purpose. This brings us to a consideration of the second

Shri Ramchandra Dhopeshwarkar, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 913/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Ramchandra Vs. International Tax Dhopeshwarkar, 404/11J Ward 2(1)(1) Neelam Nagar Chs, Room No. 1724, 17Th Phase Ii, Gavan Pada, Floor, Air India Building, Mulund (E), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400081 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Afrpd9868F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Soumendu Kumar Das Date Of Hearing 08.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-56, Mumbai, Dated 15.01.2023 For A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-56, Mumbai, Is Bad In Law On Various Grounds Apart From Being Passed In Gross Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine On The Alleged Ground Of Delay In Filing The Appeal Without Giving Any Opportunity & Without Appreciating The Fact There Is Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Factually Incorrect. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Dealing With The Grounds Of Appeal Raised Before Him Despite Receiving The Remand Report From The Ld. Ao.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Das

Section 115BSection 144Section 148Section 69A

same TDS was deducted. Therefore, this amount of Rs.6781/- was added to the total income of the assesse under the head income from other sources. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) held that there was a delay of 57 days

M/S. Satia Industries Limited, Muktsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda

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

ITA 193/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144C(8)Section 250oSection 69C

item no. 33. Other Income'. The assessee claims that income from sale of Renewable Energy Certificates end Carbon Emission Reductions is income from other sources is not tenable as toy are intrinsically connected to business of the assessee. It may be noted that the assessee is engaged in the manufacturing ... generated from the business, the same would be a profit from business and is taxable. Therefore, the same cannot be termed as income from other sources, but business income. Since on account of running the business of paper manufacturing for which power is an essential and compulsory requirement, RECs were

The Kot Ram Dass Coop. Thirft & Credit Society Limited, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2 (4), Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 86/ASR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.86/Asr/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

interest was added back with the total income as income amount of Rs.21,05,192/- as income from other sources. The Revenue authorities had relied I.T.A. No.86/Asr/2021 3 Assessment Year: 2017-18 on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgar Cooperative Sales Society ... also to explain as to why interest I.T.A. No.86/Asr/2021 5 Assessment Year: 2017-18 earned on FDRs should not be treated as income from other sources instead of business income and taxed accordingly.” 5. The ld. AR further argued that the assessee is registered under Punjab Cooperative Society

Dy. CIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. Rekha Khaitan, Delhi

ITA 2831/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

record to show that before any of the tax authorities the assessee has produced any books or evidence showing her source of income from other sources. It appears that only wealth tax returns filed up to A.Y. 2015-16 where the only substantive piece of evidence to indicate the acquisition

Rekha Kaitan, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19, New Delhi

ITA 2520/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Atul Tulsidas Khimani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-42(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 392/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalatul Tulsidas Khimani, Flat No. 903, Vastuddep 1, Off Chandavarkar Lane, Borivali (W) Mumbai-400 092 Pan: Aahpk4534E ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit Cir 42(1)(1) Earnest House, Ncpa Marg Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR

Section 10Section 250Section 57

declaring total income at Rs. 53,23,100/-. Assessee shown income from salary, loss on business income from partnership firms, capital gains and income from other sources during the year. Case of the assessee was selected under CASS for Limited Scrutiny for the reason whether loss from partnership firm ... books of partnership firms where he is liable to pay interest have any nexus for earning any income chargeable under the head ‘income from other sources’ may be in future years. In adjudicating this issue, we have considered the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) vide para 6 on page