“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

Seema, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-4(4), Lucknow

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

ITA 255/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Seema, Vs. Income Tax Officer-4(4), 349/276, Suppa House, Bazar Lucknow New Khala, Lucknow-226004 Pan:Ftyps6815K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 14.09.2023, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee, Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3), On 11.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order U/S 250 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals) Nfac Was Passed Without Providing Proper Opportunity To The Appellant, Which Is Against The Principles Of Natural Justice & Therefore, The Same Is Void Ab- Initio & Bad In Law. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Confirming The Disallowance Made By The Ld Assessing Officer U/S 40(A)(3) Of The Act Amounting To Rs 3,01,36,682/- Without Appreciating The Material On Record & The Facts Of The Case. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Confirming The Disallowance Under Section 40A(3) Without Giving Due Weightage To The Totality Of The Circumstances & Considerations Of Business Expediency Existing In The Present Case As Contemplated In Section 40A(3) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. Saurabh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(3)

Seema 4. The facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from business and profession as also income from other sources. She filed a return of income on 14.7.2016, declaring a total income of Rs.10,88,280/-. On perusal of her books of accounts, the ld. AO observed

Mohammed Abdul Najeeb, Gulbarga, Karnataka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bellary

ITA 1175/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri Rajkumar Hanchnal, CA

Section 127Section 131(1)(d)Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153D

shown a lesser sale value and added the said difference as undisclosed income. The AO also made an addition under the head income from other sources. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee raised several grounds

Giriraj Daulal Damani HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chembers

In the result all appeals filed by the assessees for all assessment years stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4516/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4513/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Anant Vijay Damani Vs. Income Tax Officer 1304/1305, F Wing Ashok Piramal Chember, Gardens, Tokersi, Jivraj Lalbaug, Parel Road Sewree, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai- 400015 Pan:Aeepd7764E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 51

under: 5. The assessee’s submitted that they derived income under the head income from business, income from long-term capital gains and income from other sources. It is submitted that the assessee had filed its usual return of income and was processed under section 143 (1) the details ... During the year 2016 assessee declared income under IDS 2016 scheme. The assessee declared following amount as income from other sources being cash generated and utilised during financial year 2012-13 for unsubstantiated LTCG in respect of Rutron International Ltd. Assessee Amount declared in IDS 2016 Anant Vijay Damani Rs.46

Narottam Daulal Damani HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chember

In the result all appeals filed by the assessees for all assessment years stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4515/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Section 51

Radhika Anant Damani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chember, Mumbai

In the result all appeals filed by the assessees for all assessment years stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4514/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Section 51

Anant Vijay Damani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai

In the result all appeals filed by the assessees for all assessment years stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4513/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Section 51

Sudhir Damji Bharani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4504/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 153CSection 69A

case and in law the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of an amount of Rs 84,000/- under the head Income from other sources being alleged interest received by the appellant. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Gunomal Santumal Rochlani, Ulhasnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Kalyan, Kalyan

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

ITA 4299/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am Gunomal Santumal Rochlani Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), 48, Roshan Apartment, Netaji Road, Kalyan Vs. Ulhasnagar, Thane – 421004. Pan/Gir No. Ahppr0832B (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Makhija (Virtually Appeared) Respondent By : Shri Sandeep Jumale, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing An Ex-Parte Order, Without Appreciating(Disregarding) The Facts / Reasons For Which Appellant Had Requested For Adjournment. 2. The Hon'Ble Cit(A)[Nfac] Has Failed In Appreciating That Ld. Assessing Officer Has Erred In Initiating Proceedings U/S 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Merely On The Basis Of The Alleged Information Stated To Have Been Received Without Making Any Independent Enquiries. Gunomal Santumal Rochlani

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Jumale, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

showing gross business receipts of Rs. 84,26,763/- as net Profit received from M/s. Ganesh Textiles and also income from other sources by way of interest income received from various firms. It is observed that the assessee was maintaining 5 bank accounts viz. three accounts with Bank of Baroda

Nilesh Rameshchandra Sarvaiya, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(2)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3164/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. D.R

Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

additions of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and Rs.45,91,500/- on account of income from other sources u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. 2 Mr. Nilesh Rameshchandra Sarvaiya 3. The Assessee though challenged the said additions before the Ld. Commissioner

Kalaben Uttamchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2954/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No.2954/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(2)Section 148

noted that 3 ITA No.2954/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 Kalaben Uttamchand Jain the assessee has shown income of Rs.11,04,927/- as income from other sources but offered to tax less income that did not commensurate with huge value of transaction taken place in the account. 2.1 The Ld.AO further noted

Balbirsingh Balwantsingh Chhabra, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -3(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2295/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Balbirsingh Balwantsingh Dcit, Cc-3(1)(1) B-34, Nice, Midc Satpur Room No. 607 Nashik, Maharashtra Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Pincode No.- 422 007. M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Addpc7217K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Jain

Section 10Section 2(14)(c)

held that the amount received by way of premature withdrawal, after reducing the amount 2 Balbirsingh Balwantsingh paid towards ULIP is taxable as “Income From Other Sources” and not under the head “Income from Capital Gains”. Hence, the contention that the appellant is eligible for the benefit of indexation ... decision of Ld. CIT(A) is incorrect holding that the differential amount received compared to his payment as taxable under the head “Income from Other Sources”. The Ld. AR of the appellant relied on the decision of Mihir K. Jhaveri Vs. CIT, ITAT decision of Mumbai, ITA No. 21/Mum/2023

Vyankatesh Narayan Kulkarni, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer Range 3(4), Thane

In the result, this ground of appeal is

ITA 1850/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Vyankatesh Narayan Kulkarni Ito, Ward – 3(4), Thane 301, Sunflower Tower, Kharkar Ali Road, Vs Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Road Parvati Bhavan, Thane West, No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial Mumbai-400604. Estate, Thane West -400604, [Pan No. Agmpk6406E] Maharashtra. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 69A

noted that assessee in its computation of income has shown income from salary as a director of Manas Vyapar Pvt. Ltd., consultancy services, income from other sources and agriculture income. The assessee has shown agriculture income of Rs. 13,67,404/-. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice ... cash and on the basis of such observation upheld the addition of Rs. 23 lakhs. On the treatment of agriculture income as income from other sources, the ld. CIT(A) held that there is no denial that assessee would be engaged in agriculture activities but it required documentary evidence

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Jay Singh Shikshan Sansthan, Farrukhaad

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

ITA 3013/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 142(1)

denied the benefit of section 11 to the assessee and he reworked the income of the assessee as under : Particulars Amount Amount Income from Other Sources Donation 17,30,000 Other Income 9,59,23,300 Interest Income 9,81,660 9,86,34,960 Less : Exemption u/s. 11 (Para

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-15, Delhi vs. Sanjeev Agrawal HUF, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2035/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 69C

made the addition of Rs. 3,03,05,713/- for which he noted as "Bogus LTCG elaimed u/s 10(38) held to be Income from Other Sources, as discussed above." 8.6.1. From the above extraction of the impugned assessment order, it is not at all discernible whether the addition

Rajvansh Hotel, Gadarwara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Narsinghpur

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

ITA 145/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

return filed by the assessee and in the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act, reclassified part of the income as “income from other sources” and made an additional assessment of Rs.4,05,433/- and created a demand of Rs.6,03,348/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal

Aapka Faisla Gold Palace, Shahdol vs. ACIT Central Circle, Jabalpur

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

ITA 120/JAB/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 Apka Faisala Gold Palace V. Acit-Central Circle Gandhi Chowk Shahdol, 291 Ramnath Building, Madhya Pradesh-484001. Napier Town, Jabalpur- 482001. Tan/Pan:Aarfa8456D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Ad Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 21 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdFor Respondent: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. DR-1

Section 115BSection 129Section 69B

Appeal) Raipur - 3 was not justified in dismissing the appeal without appreciating that the assessing officer erred in treating the excess stock as income from other sources without appreciating that such stock was duly recorded in the books of accounts after survey and including the same in profit and loss

Sainik Co-Operative House Building Society Ltd, Jammu and Kashmir vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir

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

ITA 701/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 24Section 250Section 69

cash deposited in bank, Rs. 8748427/-on account of investment in FDRs, Rs. 909969/-on account of Interest received from bank towards income from other sources and Rs. 177126/-on account of Rental receipts. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in deciding the appeal in limine without adjudicating

Sainik Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Sainik Colony vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward-1, Jammu

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

ITA 406/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 24Section 250Section 69

Vinod Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 726/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 154Section 234ASection 80T

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k

Inder Kumar Nigotiya, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward, 1 (1), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1011/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

that the assessee is engaged in jewellery business in which proprietorship concern M/s Desert Jewellers. The assessee has shown income from pension and income from other sources in his ITR. Ld. AO noted that necessary enquiries were made from the assessee and with banks with regard to cash deposits made