← 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

M/S. Kalebudde Logistics, Hubballi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranm/S. Kalebudde Logistics Deputy Commissioner Of 75/2 B, Kalebudde Warehouse Income Tax Vs. Gabbur, Hubballi 580029 Central Procesing Unit Bengaluru Pan – Aaofk5346F Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2022 O R D E R Per: B.R. Baskaran, A.M. The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 6-12- 2021 Passed By Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Addition Of Rs.20,38,470/- Made To The Income Declared Under The Head Income From House Property & Rs.2,07,425/- Made To The Income Declared Under The Head Income From Other Sources.

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale
Section 143(1)Section 44A

income declared under the head Income from House property and Rs.2,07,425/- made to the income declared under the head income from other sources. 2. I heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of warehousing, logistics and undertaking clearing ... income u/s 143(1), the CPC noticed that the assessee has not declared any income under the head Income from House Property and Income from other sources. Accordingly, 2 M/s. Kalebudde Logistics adjustments were made in the intimation by including house property income of Rs.20,38,470/- and income from

M/S. Emerson Automation Solutions Intelligent Platforms Private Limited (Formerly M/S Ge Intelligent Platforms Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, grounds 10 and 11 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 356/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.356/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Emerson Automation The Assistant Commissioner Solutions Intelligent Platforms Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Private Limited (Formerly Known As M/S.Ge Intelligent Platforms Private Limited) Velankani Tech Park, Building 9 First Floor, 43 Hosur Road Bangalore 560 100 Pan : Aaacg7573K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Sri.Sachit Jolly & Aayush Nagpal, Advocates Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 24.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Process Industrial Automation That Includes Manufacture & Trading Of Automation Products, Solutions & Services For The Process Controlled Application. For The Relevant Assessment Year The Return Of Income Was Filed By The Assessee On 29.11.2013 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.1,06,46,560. The 2 It(Tp)A No.356/Bang/2018 M/S.Emerson Automation Solutions Intelligent Platforms Pvt.Ltd Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny By Issuance Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transactions Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 31.10.2016 Passed U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act Proposed The Following Adjustments:- Segment Value Of Adjustment (Rs.) Manufacturing Segment 4,43,23,760 Hq Charges 86,39,654 Total 5,37,40,836

For Appellant: S/Sri.Sachit Jolly & Aayush Nagpal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 71Section 92C

circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in not considering the eligible set off of current year business loss against the available income from other sources in accordance with section 71 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (corresponding to original ground 11) 11. That on the facts ... eligible set off of current 4 IT(TP)A No.356/Bang/2018 M/s.Emerson Automation Solutions Intelligent Platforms Pvt.Ltd year business loss against the available income from other sources in accordance with section 71 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (corresponding to original ground 12).” We shall adjudicate the above grounds as under

Hinduja Finance Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Range -7(1)(2) (Earlier DCIT 6(1)), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal of assessee is dismissed and order of Ld

ITA 7154/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalhinduja Finance Ltd. 171, Hinduja House, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 Pan: Aagca0533R ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit, Range-7(1)(2) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ruturaj Gurjar Respondent By : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/05/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 05.09.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010- 11. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming: I) The Disallowance Made U/S.14A Of The Income Tax Act At Rs.7, 06,985/- As Against Disallowance Of Rs.2, 52,536/- As Computed By The Appellant. The Disallowance Made Of Rs.4, 54,449/- May Please Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Sh. Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Sh. B.K. Bagchi, CIT-DR
Section 14Section 14A

securities trading cannot be treated as speculation loss when gross total income consists mainly of income from capital gain, interest on securities and income from other sources. Therefore, it is submitted that this loss has to be assessed as business loss only. 6.3 The assessee’s submissions are not acceptable

Kirtikumar T Doshi (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO, 18(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 556/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 555/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2014-15) Kirtikumar T. Doshi, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant 259, Johari Mansion, 2Nd Floor, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai 400 002. Pan:Aaapd-9244-R बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer-18(2)(1), Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 556/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2014-15) Kirtikumar T. Doshi(Huf) ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant 259, Johari Mansion, 2Nd Floor, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai 400 002. Pan: Aaehk-0147-A बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer-18(2)(1), Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri B.N.RaoFor Respondent: Shri Shankar
Section 2(41)Section 40A(2)(b)

declared by the assessee as agricultural income exempt from tax. The Assessing Officer held the agricultural income declared by the assessee as ‘Income from Other Sources’. Against the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed ... under appeal, we find no infirmity in the findings of the authorities below in holding that the assessee has failed to show any income from agricultural source. Hence, ground No.2 of the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 8. In the light of above findings, appeal of assessee