“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

Vighnaharata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1284/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vighnaharata Trust Cit (Exemption) 1605/06 Hurrah, City Of Joy, Room No-617, 6Th Floor, Near Railway Station, Lbs Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs. Marg, Mulund West, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai- 400 012 400 080 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatv8040K Assessee By : Shri. Rajeev Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri. Achal Sharma Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri. Achal Sharma CIT DR

Section 10Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 292B

included which was reduced from the business income and offered to tax as interest on fixed deposit Under the head income from other sources. Accordingly, the net income was offered at rupees nil. However, in the end of the computation statement. It claimed the carry forward of the depreciation

Mohamed Hussain Mahamed Harisai, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(5), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 655/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.654 & 655/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Mohamed Hussain Mohamed Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Harissi, 10, Nethaji Nagar, Iind Street Non Corporate Ward 5(5), Tondiarpet, Chennai 600 081. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Apepm2204H] (Petitioner By) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Petitioner By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai Both Dated 01.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11 & 2011-12. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Time Barred By 277 Days Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Tribunal. By Filing Condonation Petition In Support Of An Affidavit, The Assessee Has Explained As Under:

For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

total income at ₹.1,18,42,900/- by making addition under section 69A of the Act of ₹.1,17,46,900/- as unexplained income from other sources. On an identical facts, similar addition was made under section 69A of the Act at ₹.44,48,325/- for the assessment year

Mohamed Hussain Mahamed Harisai, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(5), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 654/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

DCIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai vs. Venture Lighting India Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3171/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri N. Arjun Raj, CA

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viia)

individual or an HUF is chargeable to income-tax in the hands of recipient under the head 'income from other sources'. However, receipts from relatives or on the occasion of marriage or under a will are outside the scope of this provision. The existing definition of property for the purposes

Sanjay Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Thane vs. The Pr. Comm of Income Tax 1, Thane

In the result we allow the ground no

ITA 740/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalsanjay Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Sanjay Society Building, Uttam Naka, Bhayander, Thane-401106. Pan: Aacas3872P ...... Appellant Vs. Pcit-1, Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Dr. Ravindra Nagesh Naik, Ca Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Kailash Kanojia- Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 19061 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 17.03.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Pcit-1, Thane Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That All The Details/ Information Relating To Interest Income Were Submitted During The Scrutiny

For Appellant: Dr. Ravindra Nagesh Naik, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kailash Kanojia- CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

PCIT-1. Thane has erred in law and on facts in considering the income earned by way of interest and dividends as Income from Other Sources instead of Profits and Gains of Business and Profession and denying deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) 3. The Ld. PCIT-1, Thane erred ... Court, Dharwad Bench vide ITA No. 100069/2016 4 ITA No. 740/Mum/2022-Sanjay Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. dated 05.01.2017 wherein it is held that income from other sources and not income from business, hence such interest income would be taxable u/s. 56 of the Act. IAP further observed that from

Shri Pravin C. Bokadia, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result , the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 736/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)

rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is an individual deriving income from business, income from capital gains and income from other sources. The assessee is engaged in the business of Ferrous and Non-Ferrous metals under the trade name of M/s Champak Steel & Engineering

ITO 25 (3)(3), Mumbai vs. Rahul Kantilal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6806/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 25(3)(3) Vs. Rahul Kantilal Shah Room No. 606, 6Th Floor 701, Saroj Bldg, C-10, Pratyaksh Kar Sardar Vallabhbhai Bhavan, Bkc Complex Patel Road, Opp Pawan Bandra (E), Mumbia – Hans, Vile Parle (W) 400 051. Mumbai – 400 056. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaips0543C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande.Dr Respondent By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala.Ar Date Of Hearing 23.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cit(A)) - 37, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 U/Sec Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Samruddhi Hande.DRFor Respondent: Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala.AR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 57Section 68

gains from partnership firm M/s. G Gala Group – Group Summary, Other Group and Shah Group and the interest income is offered under the income from other sources. The A.O on perusal of the balance sheet as on 31-03-2013 found that the assessee has unsecured loans ... other parties and incurred interest expenses of Rs. 64,17,250/-. However, the appellant has claimed interest expenses of Rs. 20,15,514/- income from other sources. The excess interest expenses of Rs. 44,01,736/- has not been claimed by the appellant. The A.O. has disallowed interest expenses

Air India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4467/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Smt Sailaja Rai, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 44A

under the head business income. Since the interest has been earned on fixed deposits & other advances, it is required to be taxed under income from other sources therefore the AO has treated the interest on fixed deposits under income from other sources. 2.2 Further the AO observed that the assessee ... necessary. 15. On the first disputed issue with respect treatment of interest on short term deposit with banks abroad to be taxed as income from other sources and not as business income. The Ld. DR submitted that the CBDT has made representations to Inland revenue department of UK for treating

Beni Prasad Lahoti, Howrah vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 305/KOL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

seen from the return that the assessee has disclosed the amount in the return of income under the head of ‘income from other sources’ thereby increasing the income by Rs.50,000/-. 4.3. As the undisclosed income stated above has already been included in the gross total income of the assessee

ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. Late Shri Trikamji A Chatwani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1757/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Central Circle – Vs. Late Shri Trikamji A 1(2)Room No. 906, 9Th Chatwani Floor, Annexe Bldg, 6Th Floor, Citi Point, Pratistha Bhavan, Telli Galli, Andheri Church Gate, (E), Mumbai – 400069 Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapc4783G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.H.N.Singh.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Satish Mody.Ar Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.H.N.Singh.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Satish Mody.AR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

brief facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from salary, long term capital loss and income from other sources. There was search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Lalit Jobnputra Group, the Assessing Officer (AO) has information of undisclosed

Mamta Lalit Jain, Thane vs. ITO WD 1(2), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1626/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Section 131Section 147

materials available on record. The assessee is an individual having income from House Property, Income from business, Income from capital gains and Income from other sources. The assessee is a regular investor in the share market since 2007 as stated by the Ld.AR. In the return of income filed

M/S. Karnataka Hitech Agro Enterprises, Gadag vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 717/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ramaraju N., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155Section 263Section 68

learned Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax is not justified in substituting his view of taxing the declaration during survey under the head - Income from other sources, with that of the view adopted by the learned Assessing Officer i.e., taxing the said sum under the head - Income from Business ... contention of the assessee in the present proceedings u/s 263 that the additional income constitutes "business profits" and not the deemed profits or income from other sources, is clearly an afterthought. 7.4. As clearly mentioned in the show cause notice issued by the undersigned to the assessee firm, the provisions

Air India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4544/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Smt Sailaja Rai, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 44A

Air India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4518/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Smt Sailaja Rai, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 44A

DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Air India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4486/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Smt Sailaja Rai, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 44A

DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Air India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4485/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Smt Sailaja Rai, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 44A

Mr Salim Kunhi Bava, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 903/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Mr. Salim Kunhi Bava Acit-21(3) 17/19, Khallick Villa, Ground Floor, Mumbai Vs. Balamiya Lane, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 Pan/Gir No. Aacpb 5116 E (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

determining the total income at Rs.48,25,510/- by making the impugned addition of Rs.17,72,115/-, on account of ‘income from other sources’, by disallowing the claim of agricultural income, claimed by the assessee. 6. It is observed that the assessee has earned ‘business income’ at Rs.26 ... income from other sources’, amounting to Rs.5,78,720/-. The assessee has earned nominal receipts from business activities, amounting to Rs.61,46,427/- and taxable income at Rs.26,27,567/-. The assessee has also declared exempt agricultural income, amounting to Rs.24,22,115/-. 7. From the facts of the case

M/S. Menzies Aviation Bobba (Bangalore) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 854/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Kumar, R S V S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K R Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 80I

confirming the disallowance of Rs.3,13,43,633 U/s80IA of the I.T. Act made by the Assessing Officer, holding Business Income as Income from Other Sources, without providing any decision about the Head of Income. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.3 ... made by the Assessing Officer without appreciating that the income is assessable as Business Income and not as Income from Other Sources 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the Business Income of Rs.3,13,43,633 was not derived from the Eligible Business without giving any reasons

M/S.Gautam Investments, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-28, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 822/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta

Section 143(3)Section 263

aside the assessment order with a direction to the AO to tax the amount of Rs. 35,47,821, as assessee’s income from undisclosed sources under the head ‘income from other sources’ and not to allow set off of same against the earlier years brought forward losses. The learned ... find that the learned PCIT has straight away directed the AO to tax the amount of Rs. 35,47,821 as assessee’s income from undisclosed sources under the head ‘income from other sources’. However, since the assessment order has been set aside, we are of the considered view that

Jt. CIT (OSD) CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Sujan Azad Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 775/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 260ASection 68

individual and during the year under consideration assessee’s main source of income consists of salary, income from house property, capital gain, and income from other sources. For the relevant year, the assessee filed its return of income on 17/08/2015, declaring a total income ... Chapter VI deals with aggregation of income and set-off or carry forward of loss. Set-off of loss from one source against income from another source under the same head of income Section 70 reads thus: "(1) xxxxx (2) xxxxx (3) Where the result of the computation made