← 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

Dadasaheb Tirodkar Shaikshanik Academy, Sindhudurg vs. Itod Exemption Ward, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1016/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1016/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 | Dadasaheb Tirodkar V | The Income Tax Officer, Shaikshanik Academy, S Exemption Ward, Pandurtitha Pandur, Kudal, Kolhapur. Maharashtra. Sindhudurg - 416520. Pan: Aactd5657Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Shri Nikhil Pathak & Shri Mayuresh Doshi – Ar'S Shri Eknath Abhang –Addl.Cit(Dr) 23/07/2025 30/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Udaipur Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 27.02.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.154 R.W.S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 09.07.2024. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 10Section 10(21)Section 10(228)Section 10(24)Section 10(46)Section 10(47)Section 11Section 11(3)Section 13ASection 13B

schedule CG) (enter nil if loss) 13ilib 0 C Total capital gains (13ilia +13iiib) (enter nil if loss) 13ific 0 iv Income from other sources [as per item no. 4 of Schedule OS] 13iv 0 V Total (13i + 13ii + 13ilic + 13iv) 13v 0 14 Gross income

Ganendra Nath Halder, Little Andaman vs. ACIT Circle 3(2), Port Blair

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1620/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1620/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ganendra Nath Halder, Little Andaman………………....Appellant Vivekanandapur Post, Little Andaman Union Territory Of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Andaman & Nicobar Islands-744207. [Pan: Amnph7301J] Vs. Acit Circle-3(2), Port Blair…………………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 29, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.06.2024 Passed By The Cit, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Pune [In Short Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee A Resident Of Little Andaman, Is A Super Senior Citizen Aged 82 Years During The Relevant Assessment Year. He Did Not File A Return Of Income Under Section 139 For A.Y. 2017–18. Based On The Information Available In The Departmental Database & Its Data, It Was Observed That Cash Deposits Of ₹10,00,000 Were Made In The Assessee’S Bank Account—₹5,00,000 Each On 10.11.2016 & 11.11.2016 Respectively. Accordingly Notice Under Section 142(1) Was Issued On 13.03.2018 Through Speed Post, But The Assessee Failed To Respond Or File The Return. Subsequently, The

Section 10(1)Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69

from the bank and issued a show cause notice dated 15.11.2019 issued to the assessee proposing to treat the cash deposits as income from other sources. The assessee again failed to respond. Accordingly, the assessment was completed ex parte under Section 144 on 16.12.2019, treating ₹10,00,000 as unexplained