“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

Pathanamthitta Sndp Union Development and Welfare Society, Konni vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Alappuzha

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

ITA 168/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 57

exclusively for the purpose of earning income. Because of some technical glitches, while uploading the return, the income was shown under the head ‘income from other sources' and the expenditure was also claimed u/s. 57 of the Act. However, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO by holding ... incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning income from running a school. The income and expenditure were wrongly claimed as income from ‘other sources'. It is further stated that without prejudice to this, even while computing the income under the head 'other source' the AO is bound

Thomas Cherian, Thane vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Txn

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

ITA 776/COCH/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Thomas Cherian .......... Appellant A-2, Happy House, Sector A9, Navi Mumbai Vashi, Thane 400703 [Pan: Apjpc6676G] Vs. Dcit (International Taxation) .......... Respondent Thiruvananthapuram Appellant By: Shri Vardhaman Jain, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50CSection 53C

filed on 03.09.2021 declaring long term capital gains of Rs. 2,36,26,891/- 2 Thomas Cherian and income from other sources of Rs. 66,066/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the draft assessment order was passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144C was passed

Vishnu Mori, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer - 4(3), Indore

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

ITA 121/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshivishnu Mori, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ Gram Bangarda, 4(3), Vs. Gandhi Nagar, Indore Indore (Pan: Ayjpv9674N) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By S/Shri Apurva Mehta & Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253

said capital gain by filing any return of income. The calculation of capital gain on sale of urban land as shown as under- Income from Other Sources Rs. 9,368/- Total Sale consideration as per agreement -Rs.1,10,00,000/- Long Term Capital Gain- Rs. 1,10,00,000/- Assessed

Shrisant Savtamali Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Ahilyanagar vs. Pr. CIT - 1, Pune

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

ITA 972/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: CA Payal R. Rathi &For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

PCIT was of the view that the above interest income of Rs.69,95,237/- is required to be taxed under the head “Income from other sources” i.e. u/s 56 of the IT Act. 4. It was also found by Ld. PCIT that the assessee has debited an amount of Rs.26

Shree Gomtesh Nagari Sah Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli vs. ITO Ward 5, Sangli

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 925/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Amol R KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Ms

Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

making addition of Rs.5,23,35,039/- u/s 69A, Rs.1,20,00,000/- u/s 69 and Rs.1,02,263/- as income from other sources. 4. Since the assessee despite four opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not make any submission but was seeking adjournment after adjournment ... r.w.s. 144B by assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.65,39,266/- by treating interest income from the investments as ‘income from other sources’. 16. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 17. Aggrieved with such order

Shree Gomtesh Nagari Sah Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli vs. ITO Ward 5, Sangli

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 924/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Amol R KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Ms

Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

Mrs Poonam Patni, Pune vs. ITO(It), Ward-3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1193/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1193/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Mrs. Poonam Patni, V The Income Tax Officer, S.No.1A, F-1, Irani Market S. (It) Ward-3, Pune. Compound, Yerwada, Pune – 411006. Maharashtra. Pan: Aarpp6155A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri C H Naniwadekar – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-3, Chennai Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.03.2025 For A.Y.2022-23, Emanating From The Order U/S.143(1) Of The Act, Dated 26.10.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(1)Section 250

filed her ITR for the AY 2022-23 declaring total income of Rs. 12,94,44,010/- which includes income from other sources being interest income (Rs.3,61,32,037) and dividend (Rs.1,25,67,354). It is also stated that the tax payable on interest income was computed

Pratap Raju Byrraju, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

ITA 1898/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1864/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer Vs Shri Pratap Raju Byrraju Ward 11 (5) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Ecxpb6437D (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1898/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Pratap Raju Byrraju Vs Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11 (5) Pan:Ecxpb6437D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 3Rd & 18Th July, 2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Dated 18/10/2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-5, Hyderabad For The A.Y.2011-12. Page 1 Of 18

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 2Section 50C

erred in holding that the assessee is liable to pay tax only on an income of Rs. 1,93, 750/-under the head Income from other sources. 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have held that the Assessing officer has correctly ... apportioned equally among the 8 legal heirs resulting the share of the assessee at Rs. 1,93,750/- to be taxed as income from other sources. Thus, the CIT (A) has restricted the addition to the tune of Rs.1,93,750/- as against the addition of LTCG made

Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(5), Hyderabad vs. Pratap Raju Byrraju, Hyderabad

ITA 1864/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 2Section 50C

Greenearth Resources and Projects Limited, Kolkata vs. National E Assessment Centre, Kolkata

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

ITA 2128/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2128/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Greenearth Resources & Projects Ltd………………....Appellant Room No.866, Todi Corner, 8Th Floor, 32, Erza Street, Kol-1. [Pan: Aabcn1393B] Vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Kolkata….…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. N. Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dated 19.07.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 32 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

parte assessment order, the AO made the following additions: ₹8,54,540/- towards gains from business; ₹2,29,34,183/- under the head “Income from other sources” as per Form 26AS; ₹96,253/- being interest income shown in Form 26AS but not declared in return; ₹22,27,01,242/- shown

Writemen Media Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1516/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 153Section 56(2)(viib)

appeal and without any discussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical findings on the issues. 9. Grounds on additions made under the head income from other sources a sum of Rs. 3,18,38,358/-: i. The learned Authorities below are not justified in law in making the addition ... under the head income from other sources in respect of share premium amount received by the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. Page 3 of 24 ii. The learned authorities below are not justified in law in holding and calculating the excess share premium amount received under

Sujan Gopal Mukherji, Mumbai vs. Ward 22(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4149/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69

learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 11,96,995/- received as hardship allowance/compensation from the developer, treating it as "income from other sources". The said receipt is a capital receipt, not arising from any business, profession, or income-yielding activity, and hence, not taxable under

Surendra Chimandas Kanjani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41 (4), Mumbai

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4143/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 250Section 56(2)(x)

Therefore, according to the Assessing Officer, the difference of INR.37,43,000/- was liable to tax in the hands of Assessee as income from other sources under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. However, the Assessee disputed adoption of the aforesaid stamp duty value and therefore, reference was made

Alpesh Navinchandra Gosalia, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 27(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4128/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Alpesh Navinchandra Gosalia, Acit, Circle 27(1), G-202, Kukreja Palace, Vallabh, It-Office, Vashi Railway Station Vs. Baug Lane, Rajawadi Building Navi Mumbai-400703. Mumbai-400077. Pan No. Agbpg 9487 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Aditya M. Rai, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Aditya Ramachandran

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 50CSection 57

Counsel for the assessee ref Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred that under the head ‘income erred that under the head ‘income from other sources’ the assessee from other sources’ the assessee had shown the receipt amounting shown the receipt amounting to Rs.23,02,500/- and against which claimed expenses ... excl expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of usively for the purpose of earning of such income under the head ‘income from other sources’, earning of such income under the head ‘income from other sources’ earning of such income under the head ‘income from other sources

Il&Fs Investment Managers Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3780/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Respondent: Ms. Hetal Vora

Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80M

against the income from capital gains amounting of Rs.54,71,205/- and instead upholding Learned CPC's action to offset the loss against Income from other sources only. The appellant prays before Your Honours to direct the Learned CPC / jurisdictional Assessing Officer to allow the set-off and re-compute ... against the income from capital gains amounting of 54,71,205/- and instead upholding Learned CPC's action to offset the loss against Income from other sources only. The appellant prays before Your Honours to direct the Leamed CPC / jurisdictional Assessing Officer to allow the set-off and re-compute

Il&Fs Investment Managers Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3779/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Respondent: Ms. Hetal Vora

Section 143(1)(a)Section 244ASection 250Section 80M

Sahyadri Renewable Energy Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 3661/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.3661/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sahyadri Renewable V/S. Income Tax Officer Energy Private बिाम Pratishtha Bhava, 3Rd & 4Th Limited. Floor, 101, M.K. Road, 303, Elphistan House, 17, Mumbai 400020 Marzaban Road, Mumbai 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics2640H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Rajendra Agiwal (Virtually Appeared) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Asif Karmali Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agiwal (VirtuallyFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali Sr. DR

Section 250Section 37Section 57

earned prior to the commencement of business from temporary deployment of borrowed funds, as taxable under the head “Income from Other Sources.” The Appellant submits that such interest is a capital receipt, not liable to tax as revenue income, as per settled judicial precedents. 4. On the facts

Leshark Global LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals for A

ITA 3180/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

assessee was that the ITO should have redetermined the loss so declared in the original return and set it off against the escaped income from other sources and even carried forward the loss, if necessary, to the subsequent assessment years. The Apex Court held that “39. As a result

Leshark Global LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals for A

ITA 3178/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

Leshark Global LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals for A

ITA 3177/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69