← 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

Abhishek Reddy Boyapally, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Int Taxn) - 2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 352/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.352/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Abhishek Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Boyapally, Hyderabad International Taxation-2, Pan: Bodpb0397F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ca Y. V. Bhanu Narayan Rao रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit(Dr) सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 17/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Abhishek Reddy Boyapally (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Passed By The Ito, International Taxation-2, Hyderabad (“Ld. Ao”), Dated 25.12.2024 For The A.Y 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: CA Y. V. Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: Dr.Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 144BSection 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148A

submission of the assessee the Ld. AO passed draft order under section 144C of the Act proposing addition of Rs.1,892/- under income from other sources and Rs.37,21,500/- towards Short Term Capital Gain on the sale of immovable property. Against the said draft order the assessee filed objections ... passed the final assessment order under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act on 25.12.2024, making additions of Rs.1,892/- under income from other sources and Rs.18,60,750/- towards Short Term Capital Gain on the sale of immovable property., thereby determining the total income of the assessee

Cognizance Constructions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 344/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.344/Hyd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year 2013-2014 | M/S. Cognizance | Constructions Private | Limited, Hyderabad. | Pin – 500 075. Telangana. | Pan Aadcc1366M | (Appellant) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad. Telangana. (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Ca Srinivas Maddury राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 13.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Of The Learned Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short “Nfac], Delhi, For The

For Appellant: CA Srinivas MadduryFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271F

Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee comprising of business and professional income of Rs.86,98,250/- and income from other sources representing cash deposit in bank account of Rs.66,57,250/-, total amount of Rs.1,53,55,500/-. 4. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing

Labhuben Kiranbhai Ratoja, Rajkot vs. ITO WD 1(2)(4), Rajkot

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

ITA 434/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.434/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) बनाम/ Labhuben Kiranbhai Ratoja, Income Tax Officer, Chamunda Krupa, 9 Ward-1(2)(4), Vs. Ranchhodnagar Society, Rajkot Gujarat-360003 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akapr3388L (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Assessee By Shri Bakul Ganatra, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 25/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short “Nfac”), Delhi Dated 07.06.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 15.12.2019. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

order of Ld. Income Tax Officer Wd. 1(2)(4), Rajkot that the addition of Rs. 1,08,83,000/- under the head income from other sources was chargeable under section 115BBE of the Act. 3.The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the order of Ld. Income