← 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 Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai vs. Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for AY 2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal for AY 2015-16 is dismissed

ITA 1445/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1445 & 1446/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Breach Candy Swimming Dcit Cc– 5(3), बिधम/ Bath Trust R. No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Air Mumbai India Building, Nariman Vs. Point, Mumbai-40 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaatb0133F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Ld. Dr : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Waglay, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 08.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 24.12.2021, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 For Ay 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2

For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Waglay, Ld. AR
Section 10(15)(iv)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

preparing the computation of total income, only Bank interest, interest on income tax refund, scrap sale and rent from hospital are chargeable under income from other sources as the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The Ld.AR also submitted that the tax free interest on bonds

M/S. Shree Sant Gajanan Nagri Sahkari Patsahth, Thane vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1178/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Shree Sant Vs. Dcit-2, Gajanan Nagri Sahkari 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Patsahtha, Wayle Nagar, Shop No. 8/Plot No. Khadakpada, 48, Parshwnath Kalyan West – 421 301. Towers, Suryoday Chs Maharashtra. Ltd, Near Dns Bank, Ambernath, Thane -421501. Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Aafts9566E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Viraj Mehta.Ar Respondent By : Shri. Tejinder Pal Singh.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06.09.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S Shree Sant Gajanan Nagri Sahkari Patsahth, Mumbai. Legal:

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Shri. Tejinder Pal Singh.DR
Section 143Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 80P

Such addition is bad in law and erroneous in facts and liable to be deleted. 4. Treating Inocme of Rs. 95,637/- as income from other sources and denying deduction u/s 80P On facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO by treating ... income of Rs. 95,637/- under the head Income from Other Sources instead of Profit & Gains from Business or Profession and thereby disallowing deduction u/s 80P. Such action is bad in law and M/s Shree Sant Gajanan Nagri Sahkari Patsahth, Mumbai. erroneous in facts and liable to be deleted