“ income from other sources ”

Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO

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.

322 ITR 283 · 2010 · Supreme Court

1,283

131 ITR 597 · 1981 · Supreme Court

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

989

GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

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.

327 ITR 456 · 2010 · Supreme Court

663

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.

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.

342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court

658

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT

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.

227 ITR 172 · 1997 · Supreme Court

621

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT

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.

50 ITR 1 · 1963 · Supreme Court

581

317 ITR 218 · 2009 · Supreme Court

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

571

ITA 231/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

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

Vineet Bajoria, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 45(4), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr DR

ITA 230/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

proposed addition. 6. After hearing the rival submissions, we find that the assessee has duly shown the interest of Rs.99,566/- as “income from other sources” on which TDS of Rs.11,761/- was deducted as corroborated by the bank certificate annexed at page 16 of paper book. We also find

Vineet Bajoria, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 45(4), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr DR

ITA 229/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Vineet Bajoria, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 45(4), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr DR

ITA 228/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Vineet Bajoria, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 45(4), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr DR

ITA 21/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bibhu Prasad Sahoo, Puri vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 62(3), Kolkata

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

shown income from house property at Rs.7,15,295/- on the total rental receipt of Rs.10,32,000/- and income from other sources under the head income from interest of Rs.37,638/-. In response to the statutory notices received, the assessee filed various details like computation of total income

Naraseepuram Paccs, Coimbatore vs. Non Corp Ward 4(1), Cbe, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1697/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1696 & 1697/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2020-21 M/S. Naraseepuram Paccs, The Income Tax Officer, Poondi Road, Narasipuram B.O, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 4(1), Narasipuram, Coimbatore Coimbatore – 641 109. Pan: Aaaan 9388H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sudhakar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sudarshan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 26.05.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2017-18 & 2020-21. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether The First Appellate Authority (Faa) Is Justified In Confirming The Ao’S Action In Denying The Claim Of Deduction U/S.80P Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhakar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

interest income of Rs.79,33,848/- from Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., (CDCCB) and the same is to be assessed as ‘income from other sources’ and not entitled to deduction u/s.80P of the Act. 4. Similarly for assessment year 2020-21, the return of income was filed ... vide order dated 28.09.2022. In the said assessment order, AO brought to tax interest income received from CDCCB as ‘income from other sources’ and thereby denying the claim of deduction u/s.80P of the Act. ITA Nos.1696 & 1697/Chny/2025 :- 3 -: 5. Aggrieved by the assessments completed for assessment year

Naraseepuram Paccs, Coimbatore vs. Non Corp Ward 4(1), Cbe, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1696/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhakar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Swelect Energy Systems Limited, Formerly Swelect Solar Energy Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer Corp Ward 6 (4), Chennai

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

ITA 1668/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1668/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Swelect Energy Systems Limited Vs. The Income Tax Officer, [Formerly Swelect Solar Energy Pvt. Corporate Ward 6(4), Ltd.], P.S. Sivasamy Salai, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [Pan:Aadcn3843J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Harshavardan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Harshavardan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250

Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], inter alia, making addition of ₹.37,37,424/- towards interest income under the head income from other sources against the returned loss of ₹.8,26,765/-. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee since there was no compliance

Rajiv Venkatpathi Gowda, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 671/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 17Section 234ASection 69

pursuant to the said notice had filed his return of income on 14/09/2022 declaring an income of Rs. 3 Lakhs under the head income from other sources. At the time of assessment proceedings, the bank account statements of the assessee was verified and found that the assessee had received salary ... under the head income from salary. Similarly, the addition of Rs. 14,82,500/-, on account of disallowance of income under the head income from other sources u/s. 69 of the Act, the Ld.CIT(A) had observed that the assessee had no explanation to offer for the said credits even

Sunil Khadawala Legal Heir of Manhar Khadawala, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 12(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee succeeds on all substantive issues

ITA 4635/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 57

facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. compensation CIT has erred in confirming the Rs.75,95,230/- as Income from Other Sources. of i. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT has erred in confirming that the compensation received ... surrender of land being treated as Income from other sources. ii. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT has erred in confirming that the surrender of land is not an "agricultural income" and hence taxable. 4. On the facts and circumstances

DCIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Limited, Mumbai

ITA 87/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankarmaharashtra Airport V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Development Company बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(2)(1), Limited Room No. 608, Aayakar 8, World Trade Centre, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Tower 1, 8Th Floor, Cuffe Road, Mumbai – 400020, Parade, Mumbai – 400005, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm9623M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Deputy Commissioner Of V/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax, Circle – 3(2)(1), बनाम Development Company Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Limited, 8, World Trade Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Centre, Tower 1, 8Th Floor, Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 Cuffe Parade, Colaba S.O. 020, Maharashtra Mumbai–400005, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm9623M Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 57

allowing deduction of interest expense u/s. 57 against the above interest income on Fixed Deposits of Rs. 23,55,68,319/- assessed under ‘income from other sources’. c) Without prejudice to Ground no. 2(a) & 2(b), on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred ... addition of interest income on Fixed Deposits of Rs. 23,55,68,319/-upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) under the head ‘Income From Other Sources’ which is reduced by the assessee from “Capital Work in Progress” in its Balance Sheet. ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL On facts and circumstances

Maharashtra Airport Development Company Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 37/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 57

allowing deduction of interest expense u/s.57 against the above interest income on Fixed Deposits of Rs.23,55,68,319/- assessed under ‘income from other sources'. c) Without prejudice to Ground no. 2(a) & 2(b), on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred ... addition of interest income on Fixed Deposits of Rs. 23,55,68,319/-upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) under the head ‘Income From Other Sources' which is reduced by the assessee from “Capital Work in Progress” in its Balance Sheet. ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL On facts and circumstances

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 3398/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

ITA 3397/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

gains from business", within the meaning of Sections 6 & 10 of the Income Tax Act. The Supreme Court observed that if the income from a source falls within a specific head as set out in Section 6, the fact that it may indirectly be covered by another head will ... made chargeable, ( 1) salaries, (2) interest on securities, (3) income from property, (4) profits and gains of business, profession or vocation, (5) income from other sources and (6) capital gains. This classification under distinct heads of income, profit and gain is made having regard to the sources from which income

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

ITA 3396/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

ITA 3395/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)