← 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, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acquire Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3192/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sanjay Garg(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit Vs. M/S. Acquire Services Pvt. Circle – 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi Ground Floor, Central Wing, 124, Janpath Thapar House, Janpath Pan No. Aaacg 3351 K New Delhi-110 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By Shri Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.01.2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

erred in deleting the addition by treating share redemption premium towards full value of consideration and not separately income from other sources. 3. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify alter add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during ... Ground is with respect to deleting the addition by treating share redemption premium towards full value of consideration and not separately ‘income from other sources’. 11. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noted that assessee had invested in preference shares of M/s. Interglobe Aviation Ltd. The amount of investment

Sujeet Kumar Mishra, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-61(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 7784/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2008-09 Sujeet Kumar Mishra, Vs. Ito, 436 (Basement), Jangpura, Ward-61(3), Mathura Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aitpm2677A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sujeet Kumar Mishra, Assessee Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.11.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31St May, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-38, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Ex Parte Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming An Addition Of Rs.10,80,000/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Cash Deposit In The Bank Account Under The Head ‘Undisclosed Sources.’ 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Profession & ‘Income From Other Sources.’ During The Course Of Original Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Noticed That The Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Rs.10,80,000/- In His Savings Bank Account Maintained With Axis Bank. The Ao Called For The Source Of The Same Which The Assessee Could Not File & Sought Adjournment & Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 144 By Making An Addition Of Rs.10.80 Lac. The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition Again Due To Non-Appearance & The Matter Reached Before Itat. The Case Was Set Aside By The Itat By Its Order No.5872/Del/2013 Dated 18Th May, 2016 & Remitted The Matter To The File Of Ao For Deciding The Issue Afresh, As Per Law, After Allowing A Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. The Itat Set Aside The Case On The Plea Of The Assessee That The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 144 Of The Act, Without Granting Adequate Opportunity To The Assessee To Present His Case & Same Position Prevailed In So Far As The Appellate Proceedings Are Concerned.

For Appellant: Shri Sujeet Kumar Mishra, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

head ‘undisclosed sources.’ 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from profession and ‘income from other sources.’ During the course of original assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.10,80,000/- in his savings

Amrik Singh, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3230/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2013-14 Amrik Singh, Vs Dcit, M/S Sbg & Co., Cas, Circle-19(1), 9 Atta-Ur-Rehman Lane, New Delhi. Civil Lines, New Delhi. Pan : Aaxps2407C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.B. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.10.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20Th February, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2013 Declaring The Total Income Of Rs.1,16,90,726/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued On The Assessee Calling For Various Details/Information. However, Despite A Number Of Opportunities Granted By The Ao, There Was No Appearance From The Side Of The Assessee. Therefore, The Ao Proceeded To Complete The Assessment On The Basis Of Material Available On Record. He Noted That The Assessee Has Shown Gross Receipt Of Rs.5,28,74,884/- & Net Profit Was Shown At Rs.1,18,40,726/-. Since The Assessee Did Not File The Requisite Details, The Ao Made Addition Of Rs.1,32,62,315/- Appearing In The Balance Sheet As Unsecured Loan. Similarly, In Absence Of Details Filed For Substantiating The Various Expenses Claimed In The Profit & Loss Account, The Ao Disallowed An Amount Of Rs.11,89,992/- Being 50% Of The Interest Paid For Unsecured Loan Of Rs.23,79,844/-. Similarly, He Also Disallowed 50% Of Expenses On Account Of Other Expenses (Rs.10,71,926/-), Tour & Travel Expenses (Rs.7,70,165/-) & Depreciation (Rs.9,61,370/-) All Totaling To Rs.39,93,453/-. Thus, The Ao Determined The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,89,46,500/-.

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 68

claimed by the appellant. In the absence of any business activity and as income has been offered from income from house property and income from other sources only the claims made cannot be said to have been incurred wholly and exclusively for business purpose, a statutory prerequisite for claim