← 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

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

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

ITA 555/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

The Joint Lessees of Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ITO 20 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the assessee appeal is allowed

ITA 2797/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Joint Lessees Of Vs. Ito – 20(2)(1), Industrial Estate, Piramal Chambers, 1St Floor, Estate Bldg Ii Floor,Lalbaug, Lalbaug Industrial Mumbai – 400012 Estate, Dr B.A. Road, Mumbai – 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaaj7202Q Appellant .. Respondent Ito – 20(2)(1) Vs. The Joint Lessees Of Piramal Chambers, Industrial Estate, Ii Floor,Lalbaug, 1St Floor, Estate Bldg Mumbai – 400012 Lalbaug Industrial Estate, Dr B.A.Road, Mumbai – 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaaj7202Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant /Respondent By Shri G.P Mehta.Ar : Respondent/Appellant By Shri T. Shankar.Dr : Date Of Hearing 11.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153Section 24(1)(a)Section 50C

returns of the Joint ITA No. 2797 & 3203/Mum/2016 The Joint Lessees of Industrial Estate, Mumbai. Lessees and added u/s 69 6. Income from other sources not 20,25,422/- proved to be transferred to the joint lessees or individuals thereof Total ... Industrial Estates, have Rent Income as the main source of income. Apart from this they have income from Capital Gains as well as Income from Other Sources. The assessee's are lease holders of a property at Lalbaug, Mumbai. The brief facts of the case are that the trustees

M/S Camoron Finance & Investments, Mumbai vs. Joint CIT-Circle 25(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed whereas the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 1289/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit-25(2), M/S Camoron Finance & Investments, R. No. 508, C-10, 5Th Floor, 139-140 B, Shiv, Crossing Of Sahar Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Vs. Road & W.E. Highway, Vile Parle (E), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400057. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafc 5210 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Camoron Finance & The Joint Commissioner Of Investments, Income-Tax, Range-25(2), 139-140 B, Shiv, Crossing Of Sahar Vs. Room No. 502, 5Th Floor, C-10, Road & Western Express Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Bandra Highway, Vile Parle (E), Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafc 5210 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jishaan Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. R.A. Dhyani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/05/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Jishaan Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, DR
Section 143(3)Section 23Section 57

Mumbai ("AO") in treating income received in respect of the Amenities Agreement with the lessee of the premises under the head 'Income from Other Sources' instead of Income from House Property', as claimed by the Appellant. 1.2 He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that such income received ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing municipal taxes against 'Income from Other Sources' u/s.57(iii) instead of 'Income from House Property' ignoring that the municipal taxes are paid in respect of the house property and thus are directly

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Camoron Finance & Investments, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed whereas the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 1278/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit-25(2), M/S Camoron Finance & Investments, R. No. 508, C-10, 5Th Floor, 139-140 B, Shiv, Crossing Of Sahar Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Vs. Road & W.E. Highway, Vile Parle (E), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400057. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafc 5210 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Camoron Finance & The Joint Commissioner Of Investments, Income-Tax, Range-25(2), 139-140 B, Shiv, Crossing Of Sahar Vs. Room No. 502, 5Th Floor, C-10, Road & Western Express Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Bandra Highway, Vile Parle (E), Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafc 5210 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jishaan Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. R.A. Dhyani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/05/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Jishaan Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, DR
Section 143(3)Section 23Section 57

Mumbai ("AO") in treating income received in respect of the Amenities Agreement with the lessee of the premises under the head 'Income from Other Sources' instead of Income from House Property', as claimed by the Appellant. 1.2 He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that such income received ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing municipal taxes against 'Income from Other Sources' u/s.57(iii) instead of 'Income from House Property' ignoring that the municipal taxes are paid in respect of the house property and thus are directly