← 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

Rakesh Bansal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-34(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2559/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2015-16 Rakesh Bansal, Vs Acit, 403, Swastik Apartments, Plot Circle-34(1), No.2, Sec.09, New Delhi. Rohini, New Delhi. Pan: Aaipb2567R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca & Shri J.B. Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Farhat Khan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 26.11.2018 Of The Cit(A)-12, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.4,22,00,498/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 & 69C Of The It Act, 1961. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 30Th January, 2016 Declaring Net Taxable Income At Rs.87,16,680/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Has Derived Income From House Property, Salary Income As Director In Different Companies & Income From Other Sources. The Assessee Is Also A Partner In M/S High Seas Trading Corporation. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Has Claimed An Exemption Of Rs.4,11,45,660/- U/S 10(38) Of The It Act On Account Of Long-Term Capital Gain By Way Of Trading In The Scrips Of Icvl Chemicals Limited. From The Various Details Furnished By The Assessee, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Has Entered Into The Following Transactions:-

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Shri Farhat Khan, Sr. DR
Section 09Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

During the year under consideration, the assessee has derived income from house property, salary income as director in different companies and income from other sources. The assessee is also a partner in M/s High Seas Trading Corporation. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee

ITO, Ward- 27(4), New Dlehi vs. Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2608/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Ito, Vs Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd., Ward-27(4), 148-149, Centrum Plaza, New Delhi. Sector-53, Dlf Phase-V, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaacz6541L Co No.121/Del/2018 (Ita No.2608/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 148-149, Centrum Plaza, Ward-27(4), Sector-53, Dlf Phase-V, New Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan: Aaacz6541L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Sushma Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12Th January, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. Co No.121/Del/2018 The Assessee Has Filed The Co Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 68

that the entries are not genuine, then he will have every right to add the said sum represented by such credit entry as income from other sources. The satisfaction of the assessing officer is the basis of invocation of his powers under section 68. However, such satisfaction must

Vineet Malhotra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7533/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 7533/Del/2018 (A.Y 2010-11) (Through Video Conferencing) Vineet Malhotra Vs Acit C/O M/S Rra Tax India, D-28, Circle-61 (1) South Extension, Part-1 New Delhi New Delhi (Respondent) Aazpm1434B (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv Respondent By Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.04.2021 Order Per Suchitra Kamble, Jm This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 25/09/2018 Passed By Cit(A)-20, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. (A) That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Quashing The Impugned Reassessment Order Passed By Ld. Ao U/S 147/143(3), More So When The Same Is Passed Without Assuming Jurisdiction As Per Law & Without Complying With The Mandatory Conditions Of Section 147 To 151 Of The Act. 1( B) That In Any Case & In Any View Of The Matter, Action Of Ld.Cit(A) Is Not Quashing The Impugned Reassessment Order Framed By Ld. A.O U/S 147/143(3), Is Beyond Jurisdiction, , Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Se

Section 147Section 234D

assessee is an advocate by profession and derived income from business or profession, income from house property, income from capital gain and income from other sources. Return of income was filed on 1/10/2010 declaring total income of Rs.24,75,040/-. The Assessing Officer made addition