“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

Mahesh Rochiram (HUF), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chambers

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3524/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

Difference of Rs. 2,82,02,500/-. As, The AO erred in adding such difference as the Income from Other Sources under section 56(2)(vii)(b), considering the date of Registration as the Date of Purchases. 3. The AO has claimed that the buyer and seller accepted the Sales ... prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section [1], the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", namely:- [vii] where an individual or a HUF receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after

DCIT-CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc, Kautilya Bhawan vs. Shailendra Rameshchandra Rathi, Pune

ITA 2924/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi and Ms Aadnya Bhandari, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69A

that assessee filed his return on 09.01.2021 reporting total income at Rs.15,82,990/-. Assessee derives income from house property, consultancy business and income from other sources. A search and seizure action u/s.132 was conducted in the “Rucha group” of cases on 23.09.2021 which also covered the case

DCIT-CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Shailendra Rameshchandra Rathi, Pune

ITA 2923/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi and Ms Aadnya Bhandari, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69A

Amit Sharma, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3231/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

taxmann.com 301 (Del.) wherein the department has succeeded before their lordships that the impugned interest component ought to be assessed as income from “other” sources only. 5. We have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing vehement contention. It emerges that this tribunal ... capital receipt' forming part of enhanced compensation as envisaged in section 45(5) of the Act to 'revenue receipt' chargeable to tax as income from other sources. The view taken by the Ld. AO that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act received by the assessee is exempt under

Vandana Deepak Bankoti, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1), Nagpur

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 180/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri M. G. Moryani, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54BSection 56Section 69A

dated 30.03.2021 u/s 148 of the Act. The AO observed that the Assessee 2 Ms. Vandana Deepak Bankoti is a salaried employee having income from other sources but has not offered income from salary amounting to Rs.2,40,000/- and the amount of Rs.7,76,426/- from other sources

Assistant Commissioner of Income Ta, Jaipur vs. Shri Nath Corporation, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

surrendered of the same in ITR. However, the assessee incorporated the surrendered amount under head income from business income which was held under income from other sources in the assessment order. As it is evident that assessee did not surrender the excess stock of Rs.3,94,67,426/-voluntary ... surrendered income was offered by the appellant under the head business income whereas the same should have been offered under the head income from other sources. As far as the issue of head of income under which the income was offered by the appellant in the return of income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 197/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.) a

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

surrendered of the same in ITR. However, the assessee incorporated the surrendered amount under head income from business income which was held under income from other sources in the assessment order. As it is evident that assessee did not surrender the excess stock of Rs. 3,94,67,426/-voluntary ... surrendered income was offered by the appellant under the head business income whereas the same should have been offered under the head income from other sources. ITA No. 267, 196 & 197/JPR/2024 8 Shri Nath Corporation & Ors., Jaipur. As far as the issue of head of income under which the income

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Riddhesh Girishbhai Bhandari, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 975/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Deputy Commissioner Of Riddhesh Girishbhai Bhandari, Vs. Income Tax, 201, Panchshil Residency, Circle 1(1), Near Panchshill Bus Stand, Ahmedabad. Usmanpura, Ahmedabad-13. [Pan :Aempb8415 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rp Rastogi, Cit- Dr Respondent By: Shri Anil Kshatriya With Shri Alay Anil Kshatriya, Ars Date Of Hearing 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri RP Rastogi, CIT- DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kshatriya with Shri Alay Anil Kshatriya, ARs

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

sender and receiver of money in his angadia business, the income from said business is taxable as business income only and not as income from other sources. The assessee has also ITA Nos.973 to 975/Ahd/2025 DCIT Vs. Riddhesh G Bhandari Asst. Years : 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2022-23 - 6– claimed

Nikhil Baban Nimbalkar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 14(5), Pune

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2526/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.2525&2526/Pun/2024 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Nikhil Baban Nimbalkar, Ito, Ward 14(5), Nimbalkar Hospital, Patas Pune Road, Baramati, Pune- Vs. 413102 Maharashtra Pan-Ajdpn1546Q अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Shri Pratik Sandbhor Department By: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing: 24-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06-10-2025 आदीश/Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 04.10.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Act Dated 29.02.2024. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 2525/Pun/2024:- 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Not Granting Sufficient Opportunities Of Hearing & Dismissing The Appeal Ex-Parte 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Appellant Prays Before The Hon'Ble Bench To Kindly Grant An Opportunity To Represent The Matter Before The Ld Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 404(3)

without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal the Assessing Officer erred making addition of Rs 54,72,500/- as income from other sources 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal the Assessing Officer ... without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal the Assessing Officer erred making addition of Rs. 11,25,000/- as income from other sources 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal the Assessing Officer

Nikhil Baban Nimbalkar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 14(5), Pune

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2525/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 404(3)

Venkateshwara Rao Dalapathirao, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 988/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, B Satyanarayana MurthyFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(7)Section 274

determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.29,67,295/- by making addition of Rs.8,10,535/- towards income from other sources. Further, in view of determination of the total income of the assessee by estimating 3% profit on cost of goods sold, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceeding

Mahesh Ramakant Gawde, Data Mandir Road Mumbai vs. ITO, 35(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4651/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr. Mahesh R. GawdeFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 56Section 69Section 69ASection 80

wherein the AO has brought to tax un- explained investment u/s. 69 of the Act amounting to Rs. 38 lakhs and income from other sources u/s. 56 of the Act amounting to Rs. 38 lakhs and has disallowed house property loss of Rs. 1,50,000/- and as against ... unexplained investments u/s 69 and an amount of Rs 38,00,000/- being the sale consideration from sale of the flat as income from other sources. As per the AO, there is prima facie evidence that the assessee has purchased and sold immoveable property and since the said transactions have

ACIT, Cir.20(1), Mumbai vs. Girish Shamji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3659/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.3657, 3658 & 3659/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) Acit, Cir. 20(1), V/S. Girish Shamji Chheda Mumbai बिाम 227, Sukh Sagar, Bhalchandra 3Rd Floor, Piramal Road, Matunga, Mumbai Chambers, Lalbaug, 400019 Parel, Mumbai 400012 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Acypc2995G Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Fenil Bhatt, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – Sr Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :- These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 13.03.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In These Appeals.

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – SR DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(3)Section 271ASection 271BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 44ASection 68

Rs.1 crore and also the fact that the entire interest expenses of Rs.1,47,99,790/- claimed by the assessee under the head 'Income from Other Sources' is treated as assessee’s business income as the direct nexus of the amount taken by the assessee for the investment is proven

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir.20(1), Mumbai vs. Girish Shamji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3658/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – SR DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(3)Section 271ASection 271BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 44ASection 68

ACIT, Cir.20(1), Mumbai, Muimbai vs. Girish Shamji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3657/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – SR DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(3)Section 271ASection 271BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 44ASection 68

Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 20(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3373/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2020-21 Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain, Dcit, Circle-20(1), A/1901-1902, Piramal Chambers, Vardhman Heights, Vs. Dr.Ss Rao Marg, Tb Kadam Marg, Parel, Byculla (East), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400027. Pan : Aarpj1996K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Mr. Dipesh Ruparelia (Virtually Present) For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr. Dipesh RupareliaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 272A(1)Section 274Section 37(1)Section 57

business loss at which would have been allowed to be duly set off against the interest income (offered under the head income from other sources); 9. Erred in upholding the order of the learned AO wherein, the learned AO has made a disallowance under Section 57 of the Act without

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -16(1), Mumbai vs. Eagle Fims, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of

ITA 3204/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 2(14)Section 254(1)Section 55(2)(a)

declaring income of Rs.16.33 crores. In the computation of income, the assessee has shown income from House Property, Business income, capital gain and Income from other sources. Case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee has shown ‘capital gain’ of Rs.14.11 crores on sale

Ravish Vohra, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-20(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 161/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shri Somil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

upholding the levy of tax as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. The addition is not liable to be assessed as income from other sources as it represents sale of goods in the regular course of business having been made out of available stock in hand. 6. That

Jalsampda Karmchari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Wardha vs. ITO Ward 2, Wardha

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 300/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryjalsampda Karmchari Ito, Ward-2, Wardha. Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Wardha, 1, Dr. Vs. Adyalkar Bhavan, Arvi Road, Shivaji Square, Wardha-442001 Pan: Aaaaw 0478 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jakhotia, Ld.CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

taxed as business income under section 28 of the Act? In our view, such interest income would come in the category of ‘income from other sources’ hence, such interest income would be taxable under section 56 of the Act, as rightly held by the assessing officer…..” 19.1 However

Pranati Buildcon, Kota vs. ACIT/DCIT Cen Cir, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Hanedra Gargieya, Adv. (V.C.)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR a

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 69C

S.115BBE specifically refers to the income which are of the nature as referred in S. 68, 69, 69A of the Act being the income from other sources. Therefore, subjected income has essentially to be classified u/s 14 of the Act as income from other sources and that is possible only ... income is not capable of being classified under any other head being income from salary, house property, capital gain, business or profession or income from other sources then it is to be assessed as deemed income u/s 68 or 69 family. In the present case, the addition made