← 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

DCIT, CC 1(1), Mumbai vs. Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal for AY 2014-15 filed by ld

ITA 2050/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, Edelweiss House Off Cst Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Edelweiss House Off Cst Bldg., (Annexe0, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe0, Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) 3 Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce2709H Assessee By : Shri. Ravikant Pathak Revenue By : Shri. Suresh Periasamy, (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2022. Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2022. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri. Suresh Periasamy, (CIT
Section 10Section 14Section 44

provisions of Section 44 of the IT act. This action is starting with a non-obstante clause therefore dividend income Under the head income from other sources cannot be taken as separate from the profit and gains of insurance business accordingly the dividend income which falls Under that 3 income

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Limited, Mumbai

In the result appeal for AY 2014-15 filed by ld

ITA 2049/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, Edelweiss House Off Cst Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Edelweiss House Off Cst Bldg., (Annexe0, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe0, Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) 3 Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce2709H Assessee By : Shri. Ravikant Pathak Revenue By : Shri. Suresh Periasamy, (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2022. Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2022. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri. Suresh Periasamy, (CIT
Section 10Section 14Section 44

provisions of Section 44 of the IT act. This action is starting with a non-obstante clause therefore dividend income Under the head income from other sources cannot be taken as separate from the profit and gains of insurance business accordingly the dividend income which falls Under that 3 income

DCIT, CC 1(1), Mumbai vs. Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal for AY 2014-15 filed by ld

ITA 2048/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, Edelweiss House Off Cst Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Edelweiss House Off Cst Bldg., (Annexe0, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe0, Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) 3 Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce2709H Assessee By : Shri. Ravikant Pathak Revenue By : Shri. Suresh Periasamy, (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2022. Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2022. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri. Suresh Periasamy, (CIT
Section 10Section 14Section 44

provisions of Section 44 of the IT act. This action is starting with a non-obstante clause therefore dividend income Under the head income from other sources cannot be taken as separate from the profit and gains of insurance business accordingly the dividend income which falls Under that 3 income

DCIT, CC 1(1), Mumbai vs. Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal for AY 2014-15 filed by ld

ITA 2047/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, Edelweiss House Off Cst Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Edelweiss House Off Cst Bldg., (Annexe0, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe0, Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) 3 Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce2709H Assessee By : Shri. Ravikant Pathak Revenue By : Shri. Suresh Periasamy, (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2022. Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2022. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri. Suresh Periasamy, (CIT
Section 10Section 14Section 44

provisions of Section 44 of the IT act. This action is starting with a non-obstante clause therefore dividend income Under the head income from other sources cannot be taken as separate from the profit and gains of insurance business accordingly the dividend income which falls Under that 3 income

DCIT, CC 1(1), Mumbai vs. Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal for AY 2014-15 filed by ld

ITA 2046/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, Edelweiss House Off Cst Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Edelweiss House Off Cst Bldg., (Annexe0, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe0, Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) 3 Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Edelweiss Tokio Life Dcit-Cc1(1), 9Th Floor, 905, Insurance Ltd. Pratistha Bhavan, Old Vs. Edelweiss House Off Cst C.G.O. Bldg.,(Annexe0, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rd, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400 098 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce2709H Assessee By : Shri. Ravikant Pathak Revenue By : Shri. Suresh Periasamy, (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2022. Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2022. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri. Suresh Periasamy, (CIT
Section 10Section 14Section 44

provisions of Section 44 of the IT act. This action is starting with a non-obstante clause therefore dividend income Under the head income from other sources cannot be taken as separate from the profit and gains of insurance business accordingly the dividend income which falls Under that 3 income

Mr. Manu Mahmud Parpia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 14(1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1514/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri, Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1514/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mr. Manu Mahmud Parpia बिधम/ Ito-14(1)(2) 72, Tenerife Little Gibbs Room No. 457, Aayakar Vs. Road No.2, Malabar Hill, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpp8377R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopal Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee (Individual) Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Nfac, Delhi Dated 19.04.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: - 1) “The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Conforming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Disallowing Rs. 5,12,121/- Out Of Expenses U/S 14A. Your Appellant Submits That No Expenditure Has Been Incurred For The Purpose Of Earning Exempt Income & The Entire Disallowance Of Rs. 5,12,121/- Ought To Be Deleted. Without Prejudice To The Above, Your Appellant Submits That The Disallowance Is Excessive & Ought To Be Reduced Substantially.

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 10(33)Section 14ASection 234B

freelancing basis. And the assessee earned income 3 A.Y. 2013-14 Manu Mahmud Parpia from salary, income from profession, capital gain and income from other sources. The assessee has earned dividend income of Rs.1,15,91,345/- and claimed the same as exempt