← 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

Panimayam Jesuraja, Pudukottai vs. ITO, Circle-2(1), Trichy

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

ITA 1318/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1317 & 1318/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Panimayam Jesuraja, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 55, Kallusanthu Aranthangi, Circle 2(1), Radhanallur B.O., Trichy/Tanjore. Pudukottai 614 616. [Pan:Auppj9253R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Hitesh, Advocate For Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit & Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 17.03.2025 & 19.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT &
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

given facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Brief facts emanating from record are that the assessee is an individual and derived income from other sources i.e., interest income during the year under consideration. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not file return of income under section ... debit side of P & L account. Since the assessee has not carried out any business activities, the Assessing Officer treated the same as income from other sources, added to the total income of the assessee as well as disallowed the claim of business expenses of ₹.1,56,868/- and added

Panimayam Jesuraja, Pudukottai vs. ITO, Circle-2(1), Trichy

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

ITA 1317/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1317 & 1318/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Panimayam Jesuraja, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 55, Kallusanthu Aranthangi, Circle 2(1), Radhanallur B.O., Trichy/Tanjore. Pudukottai 614 616. [Pan:Auppj9253R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Hitesh, Advocate For Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit & Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 17.03.2025 & 19.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT &
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

given facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Brief facts emanating from record are that the assessee is an individual and derived income from other sources i.e., interest income during the year under consideration. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not file return of income under section ... debit side of P & L account. Since the assessee has not carried out any business activities, the Assessing Officer treated the same as income from other sources, added to the total income of the assessee as well as disallowed the claim of business expenses of ₹.1,56,868/- and added

DCIT, Ludhiana vs. Sh. Mahesh Kumar Goyal, Ludhiana

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1019/CHANDI/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1019/Chandi/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit Shri Mahesh Kumar Goyal बनाम/ Vs. Circle -6 259, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abgpg-2297-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरAppellant By : S/Shri Ashwani Kumar (Ca) & Aditya Kumar (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ludhiana [Cit(A)] On 28-07-2016 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 31-03-2015. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue Is Part Deletion Of Interest Disallowance As Made By Ld. Ao U/S 57(Iii). Having Heard Rival

For Appellant: S/Shri Ashwani Kumar (CA) and AdityaFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 57

Rs.245.37 Lacs from six persons / entities as tabulated in para 3.1 of the assessment order. The interest was offered to tax as ‘income from other sources’. Against the same, the assessee claimed interest expenditure of Rs.296.67 Lacs which was stated to be paid to 13 entities as tabulated in same