← All Phrases

“source of source”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 68810 judgments

The decision most relied on for source of source is Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688), cited in 1,372 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on source of source

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 source of source

Kunjan Jagdishchandra Sedani, Jamangar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

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

ITA 197/RJT/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.197/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Kunjan Jagdishchandra Sedani Principal Commissioner Of Vs. 18B, Parikunj, Mahavir Society, Income Tax, Jamnagar Room No. 101, 1St Floor Aayakar Bedi Bunder Road, Jamnagar- 361008 Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Erips2050H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 23/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Dated 21.02.2025 Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (In Short “Ld Pcit”), Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'), For The Assessment Year 2015- 16.Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: 1. Hon'Ble Pr. Cit, Jamnagar Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Setting-Aside The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Even When The Order As Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue. 2. Hon'Ble Pr. Cit, Jamnagar Erred In Law & In Facts By Setting-Aside The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, Kunjan Jagdishchandra Sedani

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 263Section 68Section 69A

bank account before giving loan to assessee. As per provisions of section 68 of the Act, assessee is not required to explain source of source for unsecured loan accepted. 4. Hon'ble Pr. CIT, Jamnagar erred in doubting the genuineness of the loan transaction amounting ... examined these documents and decided not to make an addition. The assessee also argued that he is not required to explain the "source of source." Repayment of loans through banking channels was highlighted as proof of authenticity. Additionally, the assessee emphasized that the assessing officer had conducted inquiries

M/S Vardhman Polytex Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, C-1, Ludhiana

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 759/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.759/Chandi/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Vardhman Polytex Ltd Dcit Central Circle -1 Vardhman Park, Chandigarh Road Ludhiana.141001 बनाम/ Vs. Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacv-5821-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ashish Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Ludhiana [Cit(A)] Dated 06-03-2019 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 30-12-2017. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.218.20 Lacs U/S 68. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

return of income of AMPL was also furnished for AY 2015-16. The assessee also furnished detailed note on source of source of said investment by AMPL which has been extracted on Page 49 of the assessment order. The assessee stated that the issue price was fixed ... SEBI norms. However, Ld. AO rejected the same on the allegation that no information was provided by the assessee on source of source of investment in share capital. However, similar transaction of shares issued to Shri Adish Oswal was duly accepted by Ld. AO. Finally, the share capital

Jai Gopal Goyal, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Mohali

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1123/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1123/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jai Gopal Goyal, The Ito, बनाम C-146, Industrial Area, Ward 6(1), Phase Vii, Chandigarh Vs. Mohali, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acdpg0160G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.10.2024 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

page 10 of impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 dtd. 29.03.2023, the Ld. AO has reproduced the entire source of source of funds as explained by Smt. Santosh Kumari (source of funds). It was explained that the said funds were emanating from the proprietorship

Smt. Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

ITA 572/RJT/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.572/Rjt/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 C.O. R.K. Shukla & Co., 201, 2Nd Floor, Opera Tower, Jawahar Road, Rajkot-360 001 (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.577/Rjt/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Vs. Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja, C.O. R.K. Shukla & Co., Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 201, 2Nd Floor, Opera Tower, Jawahar Road, Rajkot-360001 (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr : 03/06/2025 : 30/07/2025 Per, Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Rajkot, Which In Turn Arise, Out Of A Common Assessment Order, Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Vide Order Dated 17.02.2015.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

source successfully, as the assessee's case pertains to A.Y. 2012-13, therefore, the assessee need not to prove the source of source. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that for receiving of money, the provisions of Section 68 does not apply, therefore, on these facts