“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

Lsl Tools (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, CC-1, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5644/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

learned Assessing Officer of the appellant, has duly taxed the amount under consideration, in the hands of Smt. PritiSingla under the head "Income from Other Sources", therefore the addition made by disallowing the director remuneration in the hands of the appellant, would lead to double taxation, which is not permissible

Lsl Tools (P) Ltd, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5643/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

Bina Kanwar, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward Tonk, Tonk

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

ITA 1243/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 115Section 147Section 234Section 69A

well as on the facts of the case in making the addition of Rs.17,175/- on account of interest income from bank as income from other sources, also erred in not considering the material available on record in their true perspective and sense and the Id. CIT(A) has grossly ... addition of Rs.74,52,000/- u/s 69A as unexplained money and addition of Rs.17,175/- on account of interest income treating it as ‘Income from other sources’’. In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as the MS. BINA KANWAR , JAIPUR VS ITO, WARD - TONK

Rupesh Tambi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Partly allowed

ITA 1470/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 1Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 271Section 271A

addition not done under section 69 of the Act.- The appellant has contended that the Ld AO has not determined it as income from other sources u/s 69 of Income Tax Act in the assessment but accepted as income of current year. Therefore merely on the basis of surrender made ... income is from any particular source. It is for the assessee to prove that even if the cash credit represents income it is income from a source which has already been taxed". As per the headnotes "Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section

Sarojben Natvarbhai Patel, Chhotaudepur vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara

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

ITA 375/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.DR

Section 144BSection 148Section 148ASection 149Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

ancestral property and, in the absence of corroborative proof regarding the source of payment, the same was liable to be taxed as “Income from Other Sources.” Accordingly, the sum of Rs. 55,00,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee and penalty proceedings under sections ... genuineness or source of such cash transaction, the CIT(Appeals) held that the Assessing Officer was justified in treating the same as taxable income under “Other Sources”. The CIT(Appeals) held that the plea that the assessment was made without jurisdiction or in violation of section 144B was unsubstantiated

Vikas Ratanlal Jain, Aurangabad vs. CIT(A), Aurangabad

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

ITA 648/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.648/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vikas Ratanlal Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Plot No.32, Station Road, Aurangabad. Vedant Nagar, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Afapj5847B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nandkishor S. Daga & Shri Nitesh N. Daga Revenue By : Shri Shashank Ojha Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.01.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ctt(A) Along With The Learned Ao Has Erred In Contending That Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Is Applicable To All The Immovable Properties Even If Such Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade. As Mentioned In The Explanation To The Aforesaid Section, Property Means The ‘Capital Asset’ Of The Assessee & Hence If Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade, Provisions Of Such 2 Section Are Not Applicable To Such Purchase. Reliance Is Placed On The Various Judicial Precedents Wherein It Has Been Held That The Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Are Not Applicable To Stock In Trade But Is Applicable Only To Capital Assets:  Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Agarwal (Huf)

For Appellant: Shri Nandkishor S. Daga &For Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

entered into in financial year 2011-12 and part payment through banking channel was also made, therefore for the purposes of calculation of income from other sources i.e. section 56(2)(vii)(b) proviso of the Act the stamp duty value of financial year 2011- 12 should have been adopted

Karuturi Veera Venkata Ravi Prasad, Kovvur Mandal vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Aayakarbhavan, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 797/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153A

final date of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, deriving income from salary, income from other sources, and agricultural income. The assessee filed his original return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 on 25-07-2014, admitting total income

Karuturi Veera Venkata Ravi Prasad, Kovvur Mandal vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 796/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153A

Karuturi Veera Venkata Ravi Prasad, Kovvur Mandal vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 795/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153A

Arjun Shetty, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Tps, Circle - 1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 61/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Arjun Shetty, Vs. Ito, 16-6-393/9 Shubha Krishna Building, Ward – Tps, Highland Falnir, Mangalore - 575002. Circle – 1(1), Pan :Ainps5294H Mangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri. Pranav G Ambekar, V. Narendra Sharma, Advocates Revenue By : Shri. Nilanjan Dey,Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025

For Appellant: S/Shri. Pranav G Ambekar, V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Nilanjan Dey,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

extent of Rs. 81,07,685/- was treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act and brought to tax under income from other sources and taxed the same by applying special rate of taxes under section 115BBE of the Act. The AO computed the total income ... consequently the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act is not applicable. b) The appellant submits he has only bank interest income as income from other sources (Page 51 of the paper book). Therefore, under no stretch of imagination the AO could have taxed the alleged income

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Meerut vs. Maliyana Cooperative Cane Developement Union, Gorakhpur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3706/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraasstt. Yr: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 57Section 80P(2)(a)

NFAC has erred in law and in facts by not appreciating the facts that the assessee itself claimed commission income under the head 'Income from Other Sources' in place of 'Profits and gains of Business or Profession'. 3. That the CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and in facts ... that the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961 is not applicable on the income shown under the Head 'Income from Other Sources' as has been held in Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. ITO/2010) 188 Taxman 282 (SC) that the income in respect of which

Lions Club Guna City Parmarthik Niyas, Guna vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Gwalior

ITA 274/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 154(1)(b)Section 250

assessee has shown all revenue expenditure under Schedule ER and all Capital Expenses under schedule EC. Only because income was wrongly shown under Income from other sources which should have been shown under schedule Ai. Hence the order so passed by the Ld CIT(A) confirming the order

Marshal Security Services, Agra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 131/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

covered in the limited scrutiny i) ShriArun Kumar Palawat Vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, ITA No. 144/JP/2022 Issue: The issue was“Deduction against Income from other sources.” AO enquired the issue and passed the order. PCIT did not agree to this and passed revision notice in respect of following issues ... limited to the issue in the case of limited scrutiny and PCIT has exceeded the limit. Held: The issue was Deduction against Income from Other Sources. Therefore the issue of activity of taking loans, i.e. how the amount is utilized, what is the rate of interest paid, what

Shambhu Kuamr Singh, Saharsa vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (4), Saharsa

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

ITA 34/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 34/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Shambhu Kumar Singh,….………....….………Appellant Resident Of Gangjala, Dist. Saharsa, Bihar, Pin Code No. 852201 [Pan:Bjnps7630F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-3(4), Saharsha, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Brisketu Pandey, Advocate & Shri Madan Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 26, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Assessing Officer treated the agricultural income of Rs.11,58,358/- as shown by the assessee in his return of income as income from other sources and added back to the total income of the assessee. Finally, ld. Assessing Officer assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.14,15,510/- under

Ram Prasad Through His Legal Heir Pankaj Goyal, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Bhiwadi, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 738/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: ShriS.L. Poddar, Advocate, (Thru” VC)For Respondent: Shri Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 250

considered as part source of cash deposit in question, and balance agricultural income of Rs. 6,00,000/- should not be considered as income from other sources 10.6 In view of the above discussion, I have arrived at the opinion that the AO was justified in restricting agricultural income ... THROUGH HIS L/H PANKAJ GOYAL VS ITO, WARD-BHIWADI but not justified in treating balance agricultural income of Rs. 6,00,000/- as income from other sources. Also, the accepted agricultural income should be treated as part source of cash deposit. Hence, unexplained cash deposit to the extent

Rama Kant Saboo, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 7, Baba Siddhanatha Bhawan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1490/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kanodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 143Section 234Section 57

deduction (over and above the specified deductions in the other clauses) that can be made from the income chargeable under the head "Income from other source is "any other expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making ... residency in Georgia. This is a purely personal expenditure and there is no connection whatsoever of such expenditure with the earning of any Income from other Sources. The crucial issue is not of genuineness of expenditure of of claim made in revised return or even of whether 3 SHRI RAMA

Gfcl Ev Products Limited, Panchmahal vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1759/AHD/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(b)Section 250

learned CIT(A) erred denying the beneficial tax rates under section 115BAB of the Act on income offered to tax under the head "income from other source by holding that since no manufacturing or production activities took place during the relevant assessment year, the main condition u/s 115BAB ... submitted that the return for A.Y. 2023-24 was filed on 30.10.2023 declaring a total income of Rs.4,44,816/-, which comprised only “income from other sources”, and that, as per the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 115BAB of the Act, the applicable tax rate for such income

Venkatachalam Ramakrishnan, Trichy vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Trichy

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

ITA 2038/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2038/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Venkatachalam Ramakrishnan, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of C-104, Bhel Nagar, Thuvakudi, Income Tax, Trichy 620 014. Circle 3(1), Trichy. [Pan:Adapr1611D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 450 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT

Section 57

statements, computation of income for FY 2014-15 and 2015-16 and balance sheet as on 31.03.2015 and 31.03.2016. Further, the details of income from other sources and deduction details, receipts from M/s. Veesens Energy Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Form 26AS for the year under consideration, the source of cash

Ajay Balvantray Parekh, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4186/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(x)

addition of Rs. 1,24,56,045 received from SANMP as distribution of income under section 56(2)(x) of the Act as 'Income from Other Sources (in the Assessment Order passed) and as "Income from Business' (in Computation Sheet enclosed with the Assessment Order) in the hands ... aforesaid factual and legal position, we do not find any justification in taxing such sum in the hands of assessee even as income from other sources. Thus, ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed in favour of assessee. 6. Ground no. 3 relates to not allowing credit

ITO, Ward 16(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Divyesh Ramniklal Muni, Mumbai

ITA 2879/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54

profession and during the year under consideration, he derived income from house property, income from business & profession, income from capital gains and income from other sources. The assessee filed its return of income on 17/10/2016, declaring total income of Rs.9,25,610/-. The return was processed u/s.143(1) and subsequently