“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

Parthiban, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-7(2), Chennai

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

ITA 562/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 562/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Parthiban, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 83-A, Door No. 9, Thiruvallur Non Corporate Ward 7(2), Street, Jagadhambigai Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 050. [Pan:Biipp0005R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Sitaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai, Dated 17.01.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Has Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 On 14.07.2014 Returning Nil Income & Agricultural Income Of ₹.43,00,530/-. The Case Was Selected Through Cass & The Assessment Was Completed Under 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Sitaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(1)(A)

r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 26.07.2019 by making addition of ₹.41,04,312/- towards sale proceeds of standing crops treated as income from other sources. 3. The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has held that reopening is valid

Bhaskar Arvind Kumar Hingad, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT-24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 692/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.692/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Bhaskar Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-24(1) Hingad 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Flat No. 1, Ratnakar Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Building, 26 Narayan Mumbai-400012. Dhabolkar Road, Mumbai- 400006. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacph2812F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2014- 15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

shares f) Mismatch in sales turnover as reported in audit report and ITR g) Interest income of Rs.69,300/- shown under the head income from other sources, which is lesser than Gross Interest Income. . In continuation to the above notice, the Ld. Pr.CIT issued a further notice dated ... reported in ITR vis a vis Tax Audit Report. With this, we come to the last issue, viz. interest income shown as income from Other Sources being lesser than the gross interest receipts. In this case, the assessee seems to have received substantial interest income from fixed deposits which

Premitaben Harilal Thakkar, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 339/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhpremilaben Harilal Vs. Pr.Cit-20 Thakkar, 12/29, Room No.418, 4Th Floor, Navjivan Society, Piramal Chamber, Lal Lamington Road, Baug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 008 Mumbai - 400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aerpt3405P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Riddhi Mishra Date Of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am):

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Riddhi Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

verification on the issue of huge unsecured loan obtained by the assessee in respect of the fact that assessee was having only income from other sources to the amount of Rs.46,124/-. Therefore, the ld. Pr.CIT held that the ITA No.339/Mum/2021 A.Y.2015-16 3 Premilaben Harilal Thakkar Vs. Pr.CIT-20 genuineness ... paper book filed by the assessee on 08.10.2021. After perusal of the assessment record it is noticed that assessee had shown only income from other sources to the amount of Rs.46,124/-. We have perused the paper book dated 08.10.2021 filed by the assessee wherein only the copies of submission

M/.S Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed in respect of the issues argued and considered hereinabove

ITA 2595/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2595/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd., Block 9A & 9B, The Deputy Pritech Park, Commissioner Of Survey No. 51-64/4, Income Tax, Sarjapur Outer Ring Circle – 6(1)(2), Road, Bengaluru. Vs. Bellandur Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan: Aaccn1140K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29/10/2019 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate

Section 143(2)

receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order by disallowing a sum of Rs.29,67,677/- as income from other sources. Assessee against the draft assessment order filed objections before the DRP. The DRP after considering the submissions of the assessee directed inclusion of Cignity

Digant Laxmidas Kapadia, Mumbai vs. The DCIT CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 622/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModiFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Singh

Section 143(1)Section 5(1)Section 6

that the Appellant is an individual who has been consistently been offering interest income to tax on „receipt basis‟ under the head „Income from Other Sources‟. For the Assessment Year 2017-18, the Appellant filed original return of income on 01.08.2017 which was revised on 28.03.2019. A communication of proposed ... opposed to INR 14,57,896/- offer to tax by the Appellant) as income taxable under the head „Income from Other Sources‟ for the relevant assessment year, and intimation/order, dated 26.06.2019, was issued to the Appellant under Section 143(1) of the Act. ITA. No. 622/Mum/2022 Assessment Year

DCIT- CC-3(1), Mumbai vs. Nirmal Lifestyle (Pune) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, we agree with the findings and formulas given by the Ld

ITA 3088/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Dr. Mahesh Akhade - CIT(DR)For Respondent: Sh. Bhadresh Doshi

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

group companies amounting to Rs. 11,10,21,728/- and added the same to the income of the company under the head “Income from Other Sources”. M/s Nirmal Lifestyle (Pune) P. Ltd. 6. Other than the issue of interest assessee has incurred loan processing charges to obtain secured loan from ... working out to Rs. 11,10,21,728/- deemed to be income earned from the loan and the same has been taxed under Income from Other Sources Apart from this the above mentioned loan processing fees of Rs. 2,76,40,560/- has also been disallowed whereby we would want

ITO - 4(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M. W. Corp. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 6689/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalito-4(2)(4), Room No. 647, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S M.W.Corp. Pvt. Ltd. 99, Niranjan, Marine Drive, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Aafcm1365G ..... Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Mahita Nair- Cit(Dr) Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-9, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 14.09.2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt. Mahita Nair- CIT(DR)For Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 56

business of construction of infrastructure projects and, therefore, income generated through guarantee commission has to be treated as incidental income and taxable under Income from Other Sources u/s 56 of the Income Tax Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT ... assessee claimed expenses of Rs 2,21,85,914/-. 3. AO. Considered guarantee commission amounting to Rs 1.3 Cr. under the head income from other sources and the same treatment he gave to the interest income on FD amounting to Rs. 16,37,583/-. Expenses claimed by theassessee, disallowed

Smt. Kumar Gomathi, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3417/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M.Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 56(2)

admitted the same as her unaccounted income and offered an amount of Rs.46,79,055/- as her, unaccounted income under the head income from other sources for A.Y 2015-16. Another two residential plots in Ariyalur worth Rs.15,32,455/- were also admitted as not reflected in books of accounts ... statement. She could not explain those properties as the same were not reflected in her books and she surrendered that same as unaccounted income from other sources. She filed the return incorporating the same surrendered income in response to notice u/s 153C Smt.K.Gomathi :: 8 :: and paid the taxes. In these

M/S. Bhavasar Kshatriya Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Hubballi vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 583/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, Advocate

Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

funds which stand in the balance sheet as liability. Therefore, the said income of Rs 21,56.028/- is held to be assessable as income from other sources u/s. 56 of the Act, subject to allowing administrative expenses and cost of fund. This will be worked out and allowed ... earned from deposits were from Co-operative Banks as well as other Banks. She submitted that the entire interest earned was treated as “Income from other sources”. The Ld.AR vehemently submitted that interest earned from deposits made with Co-operative Banks are eligible for deduction

M/S. Bhavasar Kshatriya Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Hubballi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Hubballi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 582/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, Advocate

Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

M/S. Bhavasar Kshatriya Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Hubballi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3), Hubballi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 581/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, Advocate

Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Ganesh Chhganlal Jain, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 2101/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ganesh Chhganlal Jain, Cit (A) Nfac, Plot No. 899 Jassawala Wadi, Delhi. Juhu Tara Road, Juju, Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai-400049. Pan No. Aanpj 1550 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Pramod Kumar Parida, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanyam Suresh Joshi, Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Pramod Kumar Parida, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanyam Suresh Joshi, DR

Section 143(1)Section 148

income from business or profession from business or profession (Nil); short term capital gain ( short term capital gain (-) ₹6,97,248/- and income from other sources and income from other sources ₹6,65,570/ 6,65,570/-. In this manner, the assessee has set off the short term capital loss

Maker Towers A & B Co-Op Hsg Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ward 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1060/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes Thomas

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

appellant. 2) The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that interest from co-operative banks is includible in total income under the head Income from other sources and not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d).‖ 4. Only grievance of the assessee in present appeal is against denial of deduction ... assessee has claimed to have received interest of Rs. 1,01,80,360 from co-operative banks, which are shown under the head income from other sources. In computation of the total income, the assessee has claimed deduction under section

Maker Towers A & B Co-Op Hsg Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax Ward 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1059/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes Thomas

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

Maker Tower A& B Co-Op Hsg Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner Income Tax, 1(2) NFAC Centre Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1058/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes Thomas

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

Maker Tower A&B Co-Op Hsg Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Ward 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1057/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes Thomas

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

Sarang R Wadhawan, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 851/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Sarang R. Wadhawan, Asst. Cit, Central Circle-5(4), M/S Thar & Co. 203, Capri, Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor, Air Opposite Hdil Towers, Anant Vs. India Building, Nariman Point, Kanekar Marg, Bandra East, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaapw 2530 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Sanyam Suresh Joshi, Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Sanyam Suresh Joshi, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14A

noted that bank charges of s 144. Further. it is noted that bank charges of Rs 108,581/-is claimed against income from other sources. There are is claimed against income from other sources. There are is claimed against income from other sources. There are no admin expenses claimed

Classic Share & Stock Broking Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 678/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in upholding assessment of interest income under the head Income from other sources rejecting the claim of the assessee to assess the same under the head Income from business. 2 Classic Share & Stock Broking Services Limited 3. The facts relating

Sandeep Hisaria, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC- 2(4), Mumbai

ITA 787/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ld Cit(A). The Assessee Has Filed These Appeals Challenging The Orders Passed By Ld Cit(A) On The Issues Decided Against Him.

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

cited supra. We therefore respectfully following the same hold that the AO has not jurisdictional to assess the long term capital gain as income from other sources as the same is not based upon the seized or incriminating materials found during the search proceedings qua the long term capital gain

Sangeetkumar Sawarmal Hisaria, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 785/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A