← 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

Excelra Knowledge Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 545/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.545/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Excelra Knowledge Vs. Dy.Cit Solutions Private Limited Circle 8(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcg5715Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H Srinivasulu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Excelra Knowledge Solutions Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22.01.2025 For The A.Y 2018-19. Page 1 Of 8

For Appellant: Advocate H SrinivasuluFor Respondent: : Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(6)(a)

section 10AA of the Act was claimed by the assessee. The Ld. AO held that such interest income was taxable under the head Income from Other Sources and, therefore, not eligible for deduction under section 10AA of the Act. He accordingly completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

Sugrabahen Umer Bhorania, Mumbai vs. Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5741/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Sugrabahen Umer Bhorania Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 6Th Floor, Flat 602, Murga Giran 20(3)(1), Mumbai Chs, Grant Road (E), Mumbai Piramal Chambers, Mumbai 400008 400012 Pan: (Cddpb8620D) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Ms. Shruti Kalyanikar-Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1078510218(1) Dated 15.07.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai U/S. 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 23.09.2024 For Ay 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Of Rs. 45,10,345/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & The 2

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti Kalyanikar-AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)

Short Term Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee. Another addition of Rs. 68,00,000/- was made under the head ‘income from other sources’ for which ld. AO presumed that assessee had received this amount on which TDS had been credited. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) where

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S American Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, cross appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4295/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.4295/िद"ी/2009(िन.व. 2003-04) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), R. No. 390, Central Revenue Building, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi 110002 बनाम Vs. American Express (India) P. Ltd., First Floor, Mercantile House, 15, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaaca-8163-F आअसं.4240/िद"ी/2009(िन.व. 2003-04) American Express (India) P. Ltd., First Floor, Mercantile House, 15, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaaca-8163-F बनाम Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Central Revenue Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nishank Vashitath, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 26/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Nishank Vashitath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 10BSection 80H

course of its business and also interest earned by it from the staff loans and such interest income would not be taxable as 'Income from other Sources' under Section 56 of the Act. The incidental activity of parking of Surplus Funds with the Banks or advancing of staff loans

American Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, cross appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4240/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.4295/िद"ी/2009(िन.व. 2003-04) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), R. No. 390, Central Revenue Building, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi 110002 बनाम Vs. American Express (India) P. Ltd., First Floor, Mercantile House, 15, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaaca-8163-F आअसं.4240/िद"ी/2009(िन.व. 2003-04) American Express (India) P. Ltd., First Floor, Mercantile House, 15, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaaca-8163-F बनाम Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Central Revenue Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nishank Vashitath, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 26/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Nishank Vashitath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 10BSection 80H

course of its business and also interest earned by it from the staff loans and such interest income would not be taxable as 'Income from other Sources' under Section 56 of the Act. The incidental activity of parking of Surplus Funds with the Banks or advancing of staff loans