← 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

Ambey Laboratories Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

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

ITA 2334/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanambey Laboratories Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 2(2), Ground Floor, Property No.555, Delhi. Tarla Mohalla Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaaca4317R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Apoorva Bhardwaj, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 Date Of Order : 27.06.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 31.01.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 04.11.2017 Declaring Loss Of Rs.15,30,39,,439/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Notices Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Ms. Apoorva Bhardwaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 68

such means or mixed of these. "[Please refer Page No.1-50 of Case Law Compilation] 7. That for the instant year 'Source of Source' is not the relevant criteria - It is submitted that the deeming provision regarding non-explanation or unsatisfactory explanation of source of the person from ... make the loan not on the basis of earning capacity. Further he submitted that in the current year, the concept of proving source of source is not relevant since section 68 of the Act was amended and it is effective from 01.04.2023. After considering the submissions of both

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Himatnagar, Himatnagar vs. Kalidas Jivabhai Patel, Himatnagar

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 934/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.934/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Kalidas Jivabhai Patel, Ward-1, बनाम/ Asian Parivar, V/S. Himatnagar. Nr. Mahakali Mandir Road, Himatnagar-383001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Accpp5913D & C.O No.18/Ahd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.934/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kalidas Jivabhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer, Asian Parivar, बनाम/ Ward-1, V/S. Nr. Mahakali Mandir Road, Himatnagar. Himatnagar-383001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Accpp5913D

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi with Shri Biren Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

source of capital introduced, i.e., loan received from his father through banking channel, he could not be expected to prove the source of source unless specific evidence existed to suggest his involvement in any colourable device. The assessee also argued that during the year ... only the nature and source of the capital introduced into the partnership firm M/s. Gokul Agrotech but has also explained the source of source in a comprehensive and satisfactory manner. It was submitted that the capital contribution of Rs. 14.30 crores was made through banking channels

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sea Point Trading & Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1731/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judical Member & Shri Manish Agarwalasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Sea Point Trading & Income Tax, Builders Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-2, Vs. B-4/43, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi. Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029. Pan: Aabcs0741C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Ld. Cit(A), In Short], Dt. 29.01.2026 In Appeal No. 16/2015-16 For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short). 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Correct In Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Laws In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.6,35,00,000/- Made By Ao On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act Received From M/S Manan Merchandise Pvt. Ltd.”

Section 127Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

unexplained income of the assessee It has also been held that the assessee cannot be presumed to have special knowledge about the source of source or origin of origin and once the assessee points out a depositor from whom he has received money and if the depositor owns ... advancement of money to the assessee, the further enquiry into the source of source or failure to explain sou rce of source cannot result in invoking the provisions of section 68 and it will not, therefore, be for the assessee to explain further