← 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 - 10 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Netlink Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 2021/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Netlink Solutions (India) Income-Tax, Pvt. Ltd. 10(3)(1), 57, Laxmi Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Room No.212, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, New Link Road, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Andheri West, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 069 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv3426V M/S Netlink Solutions (India) The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, 57, Laxmi Plaza, 10(3)(1), 2Nd Floor, Room No.212, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Vs. New Link Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Andheri West, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 069 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv &For Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, SR. AR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(3)

long term capital gain of ₹1,39,79,838/-, short term capital gain of ₹82,18,221/- and treating the same as income from other sources.” ITA Nos. 2021 & 1657/Mum/2019 Netlink Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd.; AY 15-16 03. The learned Assessing Officer has raised following grounds of appeal ... added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration under the head 'Income from other sources and the short term capital loss that were arise on above securities is being disallowed amounting to Rs. 2,34,03,346/-. As the assessee company has claimed as short

Netlink Solutions (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 10(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 1657/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Netlink Solutions (India) Income-Tax, Pvt. Ltd. 10(3)(1), 57, Laxmi Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Room No.212, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, New Link Road, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Andheri West, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 069 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv3426V M/S Netlink Solutions (India) The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, 57, Laxmi Plaza, 10(3)(1), 2Nd Floor, Room No.212, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Vs. New Link Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Andheri West, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 069 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv &For Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, SR. AR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(3)

long term capital gain of ₹1,39,79,838/-, short term capital gain of ₹82,18,221/- and treating the same as income from other sources.” ITA Nos. 2021 & 1657/Mum/2019 Netlink Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd.; AY 15-16 03. The learned Assessing Officer has raised following grounds of appeal ... added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration under the head 'Income from other sources and the short term capital loss that were arise on above securities is being disallowed amounting to Rs. 2,34,03,346/-. As the assessee company has claimed as short

Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 7035/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7035/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिधम/ Acit-5(3)(2) M/S. Tolani Shipping Co. Room No.573, Aayakar Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, 5Th Floor, M. K. 10-A, Bakhtawar, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact4127C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Mishra (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Satya Prakash सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.08.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -58 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Addition Of Rs.30,96,52,860/- Made By The Ao/Tpo To Rs.12,00,43,750/- On Account Of Profit Split Method, Ignoring That The Tpo Rejected A.Y.2008-09 The Cup Method After Giving Detailed Reasons In The Order Passed U/S 92Ca(3).

For Appellant: Shri Satya PrakashFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra (DR)
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 50Section 92C

conclusion that the said income are not connected to the core business of the assessee and hence assessed the same as income from other source. 30.2. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee after considering the contention of the assessee by observing and holding as under ... Since the facts of the case remains the same, addition of interest of income of Rs.496480/- to income from other sources is deleted. 6.4 With regard to the addition of sundry balances written back amounting to Rs.59877/-, the appellant submitted that sundry balances written back is income from core activities

Smt. Santosh Anil Parmar, Mumbai vs. ITO-22(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 and 2009-10 are allowed

ITA 7069/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 7067/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2007-08) आअसं. 7068/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2008-09) आअसं. 7069/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2009-10) Smt. Santosh Anil Parmar, 501, Prabhat Co-Op Hs Society Ltd. Plot No.;415A, D.K.Sandhu Marg , Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 Pan:Agkpp-5786-E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer-22(2)(2), 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Rly Station, Navi Mumbai 400 703 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Devendra Kothari ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/02/2022

For Appellant: Shri Devendra KothariFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Assessing Officer treated the long term 3 ITA NO.7068/MUM/2019(A.Y 2008-09) capital gain of Rs.5,03,622/- declared by the assessee, as income from unexplained sources and made addition of the aforesaid amount under the head ‘ Income from other Sources’. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 23/01/2014 passed ... made by the Assessing Officer by 8 ITA NO.7068/MUM/2019(A.Y 2008-09) treating capital gain on sale of shares as income from other sources is directed to be deleted. 8. In the result, findings of the CIT(A) on this issue are set aside and appeal of the assessee

Smt Santosh Anil Parmar, Mumbai vs. ITO-22(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 and 2009-10 are allowed

ITA 7067/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 7067/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2007-08) आअसं. 7068/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2008-09) आअसं. 7069/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2009-10) Smt. Santosh Anil Parmar, 501, Prabhat Co-Op Hs Society Ltd. Plot No.;415A, D.K.Sandhu Marg , Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 Pan:Agkpp-5786-E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer-22(2)(2), 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Rly Station, Navi Mumbai 400 703 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Devendra Kothari ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/02/2022

For Appellant: Shri Devendra KothariFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Assessing Officer treated the long term 3 ITA NO.7068/MUM/2019(A.Y 2008-09) capital gain of Rs.5,03,622/- declared by the assessee, as income from unexplained sources and made addition of the aforesaid amount under the head ‘ Income from other Sources’. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 23/01/2014 passed ... made by the Assessing Officer by 8 ITA NO.7068/MUM/2019(A.Y 2008-09) treating capital gain on sale of shares as income from other sources is directed to be deleted. 8. In the result, findings of the CIT(A) on this issue are set aside and appeal of the assessee

Mumbai Sez Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

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

ITA 7022/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7022/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Mumbai Sez Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-39 1St Floor, Jai Centre, 34, Mumbai Vs. P.D. Mello Road, Opp. Red Gate, Masjid, Mumbai- 400009. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcg2739C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By: Shri A. K. Kardam (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.03.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-41, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2007-08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.11,26,507/- Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Ita. No.7022/Mum/2013 A.Y. 2007-08 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.41,02,40,470/- Claimed Under Section 57(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Each One Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal Is Independent & Without Prejudice To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Kardam (DR)
Section 10(35)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263Section 57

loss account of the relevant year. The AO arrived at this conclusion that the interest income earned on intercorporate deposit is taxable as income from other sources and no deduction of interest is liable u/s 57(iii) of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the order. The contention ... been set up in the A.Y. 2003-04. The issue of interest on intercorporate deposit either it to be taxed as business income or other sources has been decided by Hon‟ble ITAT in the assessee‟s own case bearing ITA. No.4939/M/2014 for the A.Y.2010-11, bearing ITA. No.2830/M/2017

M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1933/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Tower ‘D’, 4Th Floor, Ibc Income-Tax, Knowledge Park, 4/1 Bannerghatta Vs. Circle - 4(1)(2), Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 029. Pan –Aaccm 8044 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.A Revenue By : Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 4, Bangalore Dated 22/3/2018 For The Asst. Year 2011-12 For Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/-. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Before Us “(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Dcit & Cit(A) Erred In Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/- By Adding The Negative Net-Worth Instead Of Restricting The Same To Nil As Deeded Cost, Since Cost Cannot Be A Negative Value Page 2 Of 19

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 50B

through slump sale. The assessee has offered the income from slump sale of pharma division at Rs.7,80,38,453/- under the head ‘income from other sources’ in the profit and loss account. In the computation of total income, the assessee has reduced the same from the profit and gains