← 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. Vantage Agora Marketing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 12(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 373/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Vantage Agora Marketing Pvt. Ltd., # Pixel Park-A, 4Th Floor, The Deputy Pes Institute Of Commissioner Of Technology, Income Tax, Vs. Hosur Road, Electronic Circle – 12(5), City, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1443P Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Basaganni, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysuru, Insofar As It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar
Section 10ASection 234CSection 72

units for set off against the profits of non-10B units in the subsequent assessment years. The AO firstly noticed that there was income from other sources to the extent of Rs.4,71,15,896 and such had to be set off against the loss of the non-10B units ... said brought forward depreciation could not be set-off from the profits of the EOU but was available to be set- off against income from other sources. It was also claimed that the profits had to be computed on a "commercial" basis. The AO accepted the claim though

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Smt. Villoo Zareer Morawala Patel, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1359/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Villoo Zareer Morawala Patel, The Deputy C/O. M/S. Avesthagen Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Regus Ub City Circle – 1(1)(1), Concorde, 15Th Floor, Bangalore. Vs. Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Abvpp2706J Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Filed By Revenue Against Order Dated 07/03/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) For Assessment Year 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (Appeals), In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue, Is Opposed To Law & The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition To The Extent Of Rs. 3,42,60,261/- Made By The Assessing Officer

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar
Section 148

other sources. For year consideration, assessee filed a return of income on 30/09/2013, declaring total income of ₹ 19,707 under the head, “income from other sources”. The Ld.AO found that assessee received salary income of ₹ 3,72,00,008/-, which was not declared in the return of income dated ... withdrawn the salary income of ₹ 3,72,00,008/-during the year under consideration and instead had earned only ₹ 19,707/-under the “Income from Other Sources”. Assessee was accordingly asked to furnish complete details of the salary along with relevant ledger account, Form 16A etc. 3. The assessee relied

Rockdale Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-2 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the respective assessees are dismissed

ITA 6740/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 6739/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2014-15) Royal Accord Realtors Pvt. Ltd. 26, Onlooker Building, Sir P.M.Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aadcr-1352-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit, Circle -2(1)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 6740/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2014-15) Rockdale Realtors Pvt.Ltd. 9, Datrutwa, Mmg Marg, Dadar East, Mumbai 400 014. Pan: Aadcr-1353-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit, Circle -2(1)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri T.Shankar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/03/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri T.Shankar
Section 115VSection 288ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 79

prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section(1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Income from Other Sources”, Xxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx (viib):where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year

Royal Accord Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the respective assessees are dismissed

ITA 6739/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 6739/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2014-15) Royal Accord Realtors Pvt. Ltd. 26, Onlooker Building, Sir P.M.Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aadcr-1352-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit, Circle -2(1)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 6740/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2014-15) Rockdale Realtors Pvt.Ltd. 9, Datrutwa, Mmg Marg, Dadar East, Mumbai 400 014. Pan: Aadcr-1353-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit, Circle -2(1)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri T.Shankar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/03/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri T.Shankar
Section 115VSection 288ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 79

prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section(1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Income from Other Sources”, Xxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx (viib):where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year

25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range -6(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3085/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

addition of 2 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 interest on Income Tax refund of Rs.7,66,868/- was assessed under the head income from other sources. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who partly allowed the claim of the assessee but the revenue was not satisfied ... included in the total income of the appellant. Since the provisions of section 56(1) seek to bring to tax under the head Income from Other Sources income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income, the same will not be applicable to the capital

ITO 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. 25 Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2798/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

addition of 2 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 interest on Income Tax refund of Rs.7,66,868/- was assessed under the head income from other sources. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who partly allowed the claim of the assessee but the revenue was not satisfied ... included in the total income of the appellant. Since the provisions of section 56(1) seek to bring to tax under the head Income from Other Sources income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income, the same will not be applicable to the capital

Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee appeal

ITA 2469/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Breach Candy Vs. Dcit, Cc5(3) Swimming Bath Trust Room No. 1906, 19Th 66, Bhulabhai Desai Floor, Air India Bldg, Road, Breach Candy, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400026. Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb0133F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Rajeev Waglay Adv. Ar Respondent By : Shri.Dilip Kumar Shah & Shri.Mahesh Akhade. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 53, Mumbai Passed U/Sec144 R.W.S147 & 250 Of The Act (A.Y.2014-15) & U/Sec 143(3)R.W.S147 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (A.Y.2015-16). Since The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical & Inter Connected, Hence Are Clubbed, Heard & Consolidated Order Is Passed.

For Appellant: Shri.Rajeev Waglay Adv. ARFor Respondent: Shri.Dilip Kumar Shah &
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 2(15)

r.w.s 254 proceedings dated 28.03.2016 applying the principal of mutuality and taxed other income, being interest from Bank, fixed Deposits etc as income from other sources and assessed the income at Rs. 79,46,609/-. Decision of In the meantime the assessee had assailed the Hon’ble ITAT order ... computation of income, the assessee has disclosed the bank interest, income tax refund interest income, scrap sale and rent from hospital under income from other sources,. Further, the A.O observed that the assessee has received tax free interest income on securities-bonds aggregating