← 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

Deputy CIT-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Essar Shipping Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 821/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 821/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Essar Shipping Dy. Cit-Circle – 5(3)(1), Limited R. No. 568, Aayakar बिधम/ Essar House, 11, K K Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 034 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aacce3707D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Prakash R. Mane, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Patwari/ Shri Rishav Patwari, Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Impugned Order Dated 28.02.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals)-56, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash R. ManeFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Patwari/ Shri
Section 115VSection 143(3)Section 28Section 43Section 92Section 92F

dismissed. 15. Ground No. 3.2 & 3.3 relates to interest received from subsidiary companies held as business income and not as income from other sources. 26 I.T.A. No. 821/Mum/2022 M/s Essar Shipping Limited 16. Assessee had received income from non tonnage activity which has been shown as business income ... assessee and AO has treated as income from other sources. The interest earned by the assessee from the banks amounting to Rs. 1.99 crores and interest earned on ICDs amounting to Rs. 83.71 crores. Apart from that, assessee has also earned interest income from the income tax refund amounting

DCIT- CC- 5(3), Mumbai vs. Irb Jaipur Deoli Tollway Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2542/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2542/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-5(3) बिधम/ M/S. Irb Jaipur Deoli Tollway Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Air India Building, Irb Complex, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai- Village, Andheri, East, 400021. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacci1724Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi & Ms. Dhanalaxmi Iyyar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 53, Mumbai Dated 03.06.2021. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Of Rs.4,70,67,196/- Which Was Added By The Ao U/S 56 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi & MsFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 56

made by the appellant has been considered. The issue under the dispute is whether interest income from Fixed Deposit is business income or income from other sources. The appellant has considered the interest from FD as business income whereas the AO has considered it as income from other sources ... project. The appellant has no" discretion with respect to utilization of funds. The AO has considered interest income from FD as income from other sources mainly relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs CIT (supra). In the case