← 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

Shri. Biluru Gurubasava Sahakari Pattina Sangh Niyamit, Bagalkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bagalkot

ITA 418/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)

assessee society from providing credit facilities to its members. Consequently, the AO held that the interest income has to be treated as “income from other sources” not eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Act. Accordingly, the AO concluded the assessment proceedings by treating the entire interest income earned amounting ... from co-operative bank/ ITA Nos.417 & 418/Bang/2025 Shri BiluruGurubasavaSahakari Pattina Sanha Niyamit, Bagalkot Page 4 of 17 commercial bank/ other financial institutions as “Income from other sources” and assessed on a total income of Rs. 1,66,59,578/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of AO dated 27/09/2022 passed

Shri Biluru Gurubasava Sahakari Pattina Sangh Niyamit, Bagalkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bagalkot

ITA 417/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)

assessee society from providing credit facilities to its members. Consequently, the AO held that the interest income has to be treated as “income from other sources” not eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Act. Accordingly, the AO concluded the assessment proceedings by treating the entire interest income earned amounting ... from co-operative bank/ ITA Nos.417 & 418/Bang/2025 Shri BiluruGurubasavaSahakari Pattina Sanha Niyamit, Bagalkot Page 4 of 17 commercial bank/ other financial institutions as “Income from other sources” and assessed on a total income of Rs. 1,66,59,578/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of AO dated 27/09/2022 passed

Diosma Lifesciences Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1) Thane, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4271/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankardiosma Lifesciences Private V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Limited बनाम 4(1), Qureshi Mansion, Shop No. 77, C-Wing, Gokhale Road, Naupada, Harmony Mall Commercial Thane West, Thane - 400 Premises, Bhagat Singh Nagar 602, Maharashtra No.1, Link Road, Goregaon(West), Mumbai - 400 104, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcd0525R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aadesh Rai, Addl. CIT, (Virtually appeared)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

equivalent to value of freebees enjoyed by the aforesaid medical practitioner or professional associations is also taxable as business income or income from other sources as the case may be depending on the facts of each case. The Assessing Officers of such medical practitioner or professional associations should examine

Gora Bai Sahu, Ashok Nagar vs. ITO Ashok Nagar, Ashok Nagar

ITA 35/AGR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Gora Bai Sahu, Income Tax Officer, Shri Ram Charan Sahu & Ashok Nagar, L/H Late Gora Bai, Sony Vs Madhya Pradesh-473331 Colony, Ashok Nagar, Madhya Pradesh-473331 Pan-Fdzps8877N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pankaj Gargh, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2025 Order

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

noticed that the assessee had shown income from stitching job, whereas, at the time of assessment proceedings the income was considered from "income from other sources i.e. interest income." Further, it was also noticed that the assessee had paid Rs.20,00,000/-for property purchasing through cheque ... reply stating that her source of income was from stitching job, whereas at the time of assessment proceedings the income was considered from "income from other sources" i.e. interest income. The issue of source of income was left to be examined thoroughly at the time of assessment proceedings. 2. Further

Zari Silk (India) Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 600/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 148BSection 263Section 69A

allegedly on the ground that addition of Rs. 33,90,001/- made by the AO as normal income under the head income from other sources instead assessing it u/s 69A/ 69C r/w sec. 115 BBE of the IT Act, 1961. 4. The appellant craves permission to add to or amend ... allegedly on the ground that addition of Rs. 88,24,143/- made by the AO as normal income under the head income from other sources instead assessing it u/s 69A/ 69C r/w sec. 115 BBE of the IT Act, 1961. 4. The appellant craves permission to add to or amend

Arun Palawat, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 599/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 148BSection 263Section 69A

allegedly on the ground that addition of Rs. 33,90,001/- made by the AO as normal income under the head income from other sources instead assessing it u/s 69A/ 69C r/w sec. 115 BBE of the IT Act, 1961. 4. The appellant craves permission to add to or amend ... allegedly on the ground that addition of Rs. 88,24,143/- made by the AO as normal income under the head income from other sources instead assessing it u/s 69A/ 69C r/w sec. 115 BBE of the IT Act, 1961. 4. The appellant craves permission to add to or amend

Ashok Nariyani, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1532/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh.Deepak Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

legally justified in treating the investment in excess stock for Rs.70,04,814/- found during the course of surveyas ‘business income' instead of 'income from other sources' which was to be liable to tax u/s 69? The Tribunal while considering the matter has observed as "2. 11. Having said that ... surrendered by way of investment in the unrecorded stock of rice has to be brought to tax under the head “business income” or “income from other sources”. In the present case, the assessee is dealing in sale of foodgrains, rice and oil seeds, and the excess stock which has been

Sri. Appanna Devarao Sirdeshpande, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 597/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya V. Mudrabettu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate –Standing
Section 143(2)Section 250

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, being an individual and having income from house property, income from other sources, and agricultural income, filed his return of income for the AY 2020-21 on 07.01.2021 by declaring a total income of Rs. 5,19,510/-. Subsequently, the case

H & M Housing Finance and Leasing Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 1332/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2017-18 H&M Housing Finance & Deputy Commissioner Of Leasing Private Limited, Income Tax, C/62, 9Th Floor, Vibgyor Towers, Vs. Circle–7(1)(2), Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (East), M.K.Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aabch4398E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Nishith Khatri Revenue By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi and Shri Nishith KhatriFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR

from house property”. The AO accepted the lease rent as income from house property, however, the amount received for amenities was reclassified as income from other sources and not income from house property which position had not been accepted by the Ld.CIT(A), ruling that the amenities were integral ... classified under one of the specified head viz., salaries, income from house property, profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains or income from other sources. Each of the heads, are mutually exclusive and provides for the principles to be applied for computation of income. It was submitted that

Kishore Sewani, Bhopal vs. ITO-1(4), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 517/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

income of Rs. 4,30,446/- by way of share in profit and remuneration from partnership firms, rental income from house property and income from other sources. In the return so filed, the assessee also declared long-term capital gain computed at Rs. Nil from sale of an agricultural land ... income tax returns for last 30 years. in the subject year I have income from partnership firms, income from LTCG and interest income from other sources. (2) That in FY 2016-17 I engaged Mr Patil to carry out my income tax matters like filing of annual income tax returns

Wahiba Abubkar Mukadam, Ratnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ratnagiri

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1655/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sharad VazeFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari
Section 154Section 250Section 44ASection 56

been shown under the head ‘Income from House Property’, Interest income of Rs.10,628/- has been shown under the head ‘Income from other sources, Agricultural Income and Maturity of LIC amounts at Rs.5.00 lakh and Rs.2.90 lakh have been shown 3 Wahida Abubkar Mukadam under the ‘Exempt income’ and lastly

Nandigram Krashi Awam Gram Vikas Sanstha Suga, Nanded vs. DCIT, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad

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

ITA 1762/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B Phadke (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 133(6)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

about the nature and source of acquisition of the said money. He also made an addition of interest income of Rs.33,564/- as income from other sources for the reason that the same has not been offered for taxation by not filing income tax return. 3. On appeal several notices

Nimmatoori Ramesh Babu, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 597/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Respondent: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 269Section 271Section 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273BSection 4

assessment year 2016-2017, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.33,75,000/- under the Head 17 ITA.Nos.594, 596 & 597 /Hyd./2025 “Income from Other Sources” towards assessee’s share of consideration received in cash for sale of ac.1.00 of land at Raigir Village, Bhongir Mandal to M/s. Incredible

Late Nimmatoori Rajababu L/R by Anudeep Nimmatoori, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 596/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Respondent: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 269Section 271Section 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273BSection 4

assessment year 2016-2017, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.33,75,000/- under the Head 17 ITA.Nos.594, 596 & 597 /Hyd./2025 “Income from Other Sources” towards assessee’s share of consideration received in cash for sale of ac.1.00 of land at Raigir Village, Bhongir Mandal to M/s. Incredible

Late Nimmatoori Raja Babu, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 594/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Respondent: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 269Section 271Section 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD

Veeraswamy Jotheeswaran, Tiruvallur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruvallur

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

ITA 1756/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)(vii)

such interest income as taxable u/s.56(2)(viii) r.w.s.57(iv) of the Act. Therefore, a sum of Rs.17,99,975/- was treated as ‘income from other sources’ (50% of Rs.35,99,509/-). 3. Aggrieved by the order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144 r.w.s.144B of the Act, assessee filed appeal before ... received on compensation or enhanced compensation referred to in subsection (1) of section 1458 of the IT Act is to be treated as income from other sources" This provision was inserted by the Finance Act 2009, w.e.f. 01.04.2010. Hence, the decision relied upon by the appellant in the case

M/S. Alternative for India Development, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-4, Chennai

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

ITA 1555/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1555/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Alternative For India Development, Income Tax Officer, No. 1, Vgn Nagar, Vs. Exemption Ward -4, Iyyappanthangal, Chennai. Kattupakkam Post, Chennai – 600 056. [Pan:Aaata-4184-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. K.Viswa Padmanabhan, Ca. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. K.Viswa Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)

want of cogent evidence: - Grant from companies under CSR Rs.94,76,902/- - Corpus donation made to other trusts / persons Rs. 7,65,617/- - Income from other sources Rs.26,46,226/- However, the assessee failed to file any further details before the AO and hence the AO passed an order u/s.143

Brijesh Kumar Goswami, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(2), Delhi

In the result, the instant assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2415/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13 Brijesh Kumar Goswami, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-305, Majlis Park, Adarsh Ward 36(2), New Dehi Nagar, New Dehi – 110 033 (Pan: Adapg2435L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.02.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Being Individual, Not Having Filed His Income Tax Return For The Ay 2012-13, Simply For The Reason That The Total Income For The Year Was Less Than The Threshold Limit Of Assessment. In The Meanwhile, In Compliance To Notice U/S. 148 Dated 30.3.2019 The Assessee Furnished His Return Of Income, Declaring Taxable Income Of Rs. 13,521/- & Claimed Refund Of Rs. 2,230/-. Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs. 8,60,180/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 13,520/- & Made The Addition Of Rs. 1,09,640/- On Account Of Share Trading Transactions With Mcx & Rs. 71,316/- On Account Of Share Trading With Bse & A Sum Of Rs. 87,584/- As Adhoc Disallowance Of Expenditure Claimed. Besides This, He Has Also Denied The Exemption On Account Of Agricultural Income, Thereby Making

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(1)Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148

regards addition of Rs. 5,78,120/- made by the AO by treating the agriculture income as income from other sources. It was the contention of the assessee made in the grounds of appeal that lower authorities erred in making and upholding the addition only on the ground of suspicion

Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Private Limited, Delhi vs. PCIT (Central) Delhi-2, Jhandewalan New Delhi, Delhi

ITA 1869/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Mahesh Kumar CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Page 1 ITA Nos.1868 & 1869/Del/2025 Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2018-19 & 2020-21) THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Private Limited, Delhi vs. PCIT (Central), Delhi-2 Jhandewalan, New Delhi, Delhi

ITA 1868/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Mahesh Kumar CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

business or profession', income of Rs.782.46 Crores under the head 'Income from house property' and income of Rs.21.82 Crores under the head 'Income from other sources'. 2. With regards to the 'Income from house property', income of Rs.282.46 Crores was claimed after deducting the following ... Chart u/s 32 Allowable depreciation is Rs.603949813/- but restricted to Rs.274010351/- available profits. Rental Income Considered separately 274010351 292283065 1953084909 1971357623 -1036179123 Income from Other Sources (Chapter IV F) Interest on FDR Interest from IT Refund Total -18272714 7267260 11005454 18272714 7267260 11005454 Income From House Property(Chapter