← 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

Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Sakariya, Rajkot vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.318/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Sakariya The Pr.Commissioner Of बनाम At Khajuri Gundala Income Tax-1, Rajkot. Post Station: Vavdi Vs. Amarnagar, Khajuri Gundala. Pan : Aslps 7027 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 263

computation of income. • You are requested to explain if the Interest received on enhanced compensation has been offered to tax under the head 'income from other sources' as per the section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145B(1') of the IT. Act, 1961. • Kindly submit the instrument of acquisition/transfer ... previous year are as under: I am earning income from share of profit, interest and remuneration from the partnership firm Parmeshwar Impex, income from other sources i.e. bank interest, PPF interest, FD interest, deposit interest, long term capital gain, dividend income and income from business and profession. Detailed computation income

Gurmeet Singh, Punjab vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Ropar, Punjab

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 712/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 712/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Gurmeet Singh, Ito, बनाम 939, Type Ii, Ward 2(2), Nuhon Colony Ghanauli, Ropar Vs. Rupnagar 140113 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ageps7897P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27-08-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27-08-2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

definition of “relative” as given in section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Consequently, the amount of ₹3,00,000/- was treated as income from other sources and added to the total income. 6. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said addition, holding that gifts received from cousins ... cousins amounting to ₹3,00,000/- fall squarely within the mischief of section 56(2)(vii) and are rightly brought to tax as income from other sources. 10. In the light of the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan Vejalpur vs. Vipul Jagdishbhai Patel(HUF), Naranpura Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1324/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1324/Ahd/2025 A/W. Cross Objection No. 59/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Income Tax Officer Vipul Jagdishbhai Patel Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad (Huf) Vs. A-302, Aryan-2, Nr. Kabir School, B/H. St. Xaviers School, Naranpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380013 & Vipul Jagdishbhai Patel Income Tax Officer (Huf) Ward-2(1)(2), A-302, Aryan-2, Nr. Kabir Ahmedabad School, B/H. St. Xaviers School, Naranpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaghv7848P (Appellant / Cross Objector) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kirit P Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025 O R D E R The Present Appeal Of The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Are Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Siliguri (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”), Dated 30.03.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) & Relate To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. Ita No. 1324/Ahd/2025 A/W. Co No. 59/Ahd/2025 [Vipul Jagdishbhai Patel (Huf)] A.Y. 2012-13 - 2 – 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed For Filing By 16 Days. The Ao Has Explained The Cause Of Delay As Being Preoccupied In Pressing Matters Including Time Barring Matters, High Court Matters & Others. Considering The Smallness Of The Delay, We Consider It Fit To Condone The Delay. Order Was Pronounced In The Open Court.

For Appellant: Shri Kirit P Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250

Rs.1,93,149/-, that too in a different bank account and the impugned amount had been offered to tax by the assessee as income from other sources. Noting the above facts, he held that the primary allegation against the assessee, of having received accommodation entry from Shri Jignesh Shah, remained ... only with AA Plus Share Brokers Pvt. Ltd. and the amount was duly offered to tax in the form of income from other sources. Clearly, the amount mentioned as received in the form of accommodation entry could not be verified from the HDFC bank account number 02371000070334 and there

DCIT, CC-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Goldmine Commodities Private Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1260/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1260/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Goldmine Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, बनाम/ Goldmine House, V/S. Central Circle-1(4), 4, Niranjan-Nirakar Society, Ahmedabad. Near Shreyas Railway Crossing, Ambawadi Ahmedabad-380007. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccg1295L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Kishor Goyal, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.04.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Acit, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Dcit Vs. Goldmine Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Goyal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56(2)(viib)

share and, applying it to 6,00,000 shares, quantified the addition at Rs. 6,58,62,000 as “income from other sources”. A show-cause notice dated 09.12.2018 was issued proposing the addition. The assessee did not file any reply, therefore, the AO proceeded