← 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

Manchi Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha, Bantwal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Mangaluru

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

ITA 704/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Manchi Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha, 67, Manchi Kukkaje, The Income Tax Manchi Bantwala, Officer, Dakshina Kannada, Ward – 2, Putturu – 574 323, Mangaluru. Vs. Karnataka. Pan: Aaaam4199F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ravish Rao, Ca : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.10.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Disallowing The Deduction Claimed By The Cooperative Society Of Z. 60,91,244/- Under Section 80P(2)(A)(I) & The Learned First Appellate Authority Has Erred In Confirming The Orders Of The Assessing Authority.

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CA
Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

learned assessing officer has erred in treating the sum of Z.53,58,651/-being the interest and dividend received from SCDCC Bank as income from other sources, which the appellant had included under income from business. The assessing officer has erred in not granting the benefit of deduction ... assessed the interest income received on bank deposits under the head "Income from other sources" and denied deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO on this issue. 8. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee is entitled