← 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

Bhawani Shankar Gupta, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1) Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 43/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

loss under the head House Property, showing income under the head Profit and Gains from Business and Profession (covered under section 44AD) and Income from Other Sources. Since, assessee was not aware of the technical provisions of turnover etc. related to shares and securities business and since he also suffered

ITO Ward - 2, Hisar vs. Hari Singh Saini, Hisar

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1539/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Kuldip Khera, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 14SSection 155(16)Section 28Section 4Section 45(5)Section 45(5)(c)Section 56(2)(viii)

issued show-cause notice as to why as per amended provisions of Income-tax Act interest be not taxed as income from other sources after allowing a deduction of 50% of such income in the year of receipt. AO proceeded to reject all the assessee’s submissions and taxed ... said amount as assessee’s income from other sources. 4. Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) considered the issue and found that the issue is already settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of 3 ITA No.1539/Del./2020 CO No.164/Del/2022 Ghanshyam

M/S Beltex Rubber India, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 1 (1), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is dismissed

ITA 9/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 143(1)Section 250o

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

M/S Beltex Rubber India, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 1 (1), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is dismissed

ITA 8/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(1)Section 250o

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 1, Visakhapatnam vs. M/S. Nekkanti Sea Foods Ltd., Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 158/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.158/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Nekkanti Sea Foods Income Tax, Limited, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaacn 46664 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Pawan Chakrapani ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit- Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 17/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri Pawan ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-
Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 80I

Government of India shall be treated as income under the head “profits and gains of business or profession” and not under the head “income from other sources”. 7. Since the issue revolves around the provisions of section 80IB(11A) of the IT Act, 1961, we find it appropriate and necessary ... consider one further argument by Shri Radhakrishnan. He has argued that as the subsidies that are received by the respondent, would be income from other sources referable to Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, any deduction that is to be made, can only be made from income from other

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam vs. Nallamilli Sridevi, Tirupati

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3/VIZ/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri Pawan Chakrapani, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

with the Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2000 and treated the cash deposits made by the assessee in India as income from other sources. Further, the Ld. AO also added an amount of Rs. 33,60,000/- by way of cheque into the assessee’s bank account ... therefore of the considered view that the Ld. AO has rightly considered Rs. 2.16 Crs as income of the assessee under “income from other sources” and we therefore uphold the order of the Ld. AO on this Ground and set-aside the order passed

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam vs. Nallamilli Sridevi, Tirupati

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2/VIZ/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri Pawan Chakrapani, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

with the Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2000 and treated the cash deposits made by the assessee in India as income from other sources. Further, the Ld. AO also added an amount of Rs. 33,60,000/- by way of cheque into the assessee’s bank account ... therefore of the considered view that the Ld. AO has rightly considered Rs. 2.16 Crs as income of the assessee under “income from other sources” and we therefore uphold the order of the Ld. AO on this Ground and set-aside the order passed

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam vs. Vittalam Nataraj Prasad, Tirupati

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1/VIZ/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri Pawan Chakrapani, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

with the Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2000 and treated the cash deposits made by the assessee in India as income from other sources. Further, the Ld. AO also added an amount of Rs. 33,60,000/- by way of cheque into the assessee’s bank account ... therefore of the considered view that the Ld. AO has rightly considered Rs. 2.16 Crs as income of the assessee under “income from other sources” and we therefore uphold the order of the Ld. AO on this Ground and set-aside the order passed

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation), Visakhapatnam vs. Vittalam Nataraj Prasad, Tirupati

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 247/VIZ/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri Pawan Chakrapani, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

with the Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2000 and treated the cash deposits made by the assessee in India as income from other sources. Further, the Ld. AO also added an amount of Rs. 33,60,000/- by way of cheque into the assessee’s bank account ... therefore of the considered view that the Ld. AO has rightly considered Rs. 2.16 Crs as income of the assessee under “income from other sources” and we therefore uphold the order of the Ld. AO on this Ground and set-aside the order passed

Late Sh. Girdhari Lal Through L/H Sh. Premchand & Others, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 887/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 131Section 147Section 148

case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making the addition of Rs 3,00,00,000/- as income from other sources without appreciating the facts that the amount of Rs.3,00,00,000/- was received as advance money against the agreement of sale of immovable, however ... Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law in making addition of Rs.3,00,00,000/- as income from other sources without appreciating the fact that the said amount was received as advance money against the agreement of sale of immovable property, however, later

Ranjan Aggarwal, Amritsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Amritsar

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

ITA 127/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250oSection 68

High Court of Delhi in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 20, Delhiv. AkshitKumar[2021] 124 taxmann.com 123 (Delhi) “Income from other sources (Sale of opening stock) - Assessment year 2014-15 - Assessee was engaged in business of textiles - All sales undertaken by assessee were in cash only - Noting ... from sales made by assessee proprietary concern out of its opening stock could not be treated as unexplained income to be taxed as 'income from other sources'” The assessee already declared the cash as turnover &paid the tax accordingly. The stock and purchase was never be disputed by the revenue

M/S Cga Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Bathinda vs. Asst. Comm. of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Bathinda

ITA 291/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)

proper, reasonable and sufficient opportunity to the assessee appellant at the time of making addition of Rs. 60,67,12,171/- as income from other sources against returned loss ofRs. 1,83,85,773/-. 8. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts

M/S Gca Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Bathinda vs. A.C.I.T, Circle-1, Bathinda

ITA 290/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)

proper, reasonable and sufficient opportunity to the assessee appellant at the time of making addition of Rs. 60,67,12,171/- as income from other sources against returned loss ofRs. 1,83,85,773/-. 8. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts

M/S Gca Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Bathinda vs. A.C.I.T, Circle-1, Bathinda

ITA 289/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)

proper, reasonable and sufficient opportunity to the assessee appellant at the time of making addition of Rs. 60,67,12,171/- as income from other sources against returned loss ofRs. 1,83,85,773/-. 8. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts

M/S Gca Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Bathinda vs. A.C.I.T, Circle-1, Bathinda

ITA 288/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)

proper, reasonable and sufficient opportunity to the assessee appellant at the time of making addition of Rs. 60,67,12,171/- as income from other sources against returned loss ofRs. 1,83,85,773/-. 8. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts

M/S Cga Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Bathinda vs. Asst. Comm. of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Bathinda

ITA 198/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)

proper, reasonable and sufficient opportunity to the assessee appellant at the time of making addition of Rs. 60,67,12,171/- as income from other sources against returned loss ofRs. 1,83,85,773/-. 8. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts

Bhupendra Maganlal Naik (HUF), Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer Ward No. 1, Navsari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 220/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am (Physical Hearing) Bhupendra Maganlal Naik (Huf), The Ito, Ward No.1, 29/B, Manglam Bunglow, Navsari. Vs Alka Society, Chhapra Road, Navsari, Gujarat – 396445. Pan : Aaghd1504E Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

addition with the following observation; “The AO had added Rs.11,78,030/- out of total agriculture income of balance Rs.17,60,030/- as income from other sources on the ground that the appellant’s claim of agriculture income from sale of mango and chickoo could not be allowed as most ... same i.e. Rs.5,82,000/- was treated by the AO as agriculture income and balance 40%, i.e. Rs.3,88,000/- was treated as income from other sources. The appellant had shown agriculture income and balance of Rs. 23,60,030/- out of which Rs. 6 lacs was separately disallowed

Tge Gas Engineering Gmbh, Germany vs. DCIT, Circle Int. Taxation 3(1)(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1958/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Tge Gas Engineering Gmbh, Vs Dcit, Mildred-Scheel-Str., 1 D-53175 Circle-International Bonn, Germany, Germany. Taxation 3(1)(1), Pan-Aadct7387B Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Gangadhar Panda, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018- 19 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), International Taxation 3(1)(1), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 28.07.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 270A

received for Arbitration settlement amounting to Rs.16,13,20,000 from Indian Oil Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd ('IOT') for AY 2018-19 as income from other sources under Article 21(2) of the India-Germany DTAA. 1.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Addition of settlement amount received from Indian Oil Rs. Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd ('IOT') under the head 16,13,20,000 'Income from Other Sources' under Article 21 of the India- Germany tax treaty treating It as effectively connected to the PE. 2 Disallowance of claim of brought forward loss

The Kundayam Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kollam vs. The ITO Ward 4, Kollam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 976/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Santosh P. Abraham, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 15(1)(A)Section 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

total interest paid. The AO also subjected the interest received from the District Co-operative bank to tax as income from other sources. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) partly allowed the appeal holding that assessee is entitled to claim ... assessment proceedings has added Rs.2,28,17,912 being the amount received as interest from District cooperative Bank and Treasury under the head “Income From Other Sources” and treated the amount of Rs.47,94,875 as Business income and denied the deduction u/s. 80P for both these amounts

James Kudakuthiyil Chacko, Kerala vs. DCIT, International Taxation Cricle, Trivandrum

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 863/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2012-13 James Kudakuthiyil Chacko, Dcit, Vs. Kbc Enclaves, International Taxation Circle, Laikadu, Perunna P.O. Trivandrum. Changanacherry, Kerala – 686 102. Pan :Ajbpc 2186 R Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. R. Krishnan,CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 131Section 5(1)Section 69

Business loss – Rs.35,52,891/- iv. Long term capital loss – Rs.22,14,862/- v. Short term capital gain – Rs.7,87,187/- vi. Income from other sources – Rs.2,60,601/-. 3. During the course of Assessment, the AO noticed that the assessee has sold 1.66 acres of land for a consideration ... assessee has abetted evasion of stamp duty and registration charges. Any amount received outside the sale deed can only be considered as income from other sources. Considering the same. the action of the AO in bringing the amount of Rs.5,11,65,000 as unexplained credit/investment is upheld. The grounds