← 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

Sparten Granito Pvt. Ltd, Morvi vs. PCIT Rajkot-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 300/RJT/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.300/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sparten Granito P. Ltd. Pr.Commissioner Of बनाम S.No.277/ B/H. Siyaram Granito Incometax-1 Jetpur Road, Rangpar Vs. Rajkot. Morbi. Pan : Aaxcs 7650 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Adv-Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 03/03/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02/06/2025 Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Dated 31.03.2024, 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 2018-19.Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Adv-ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

facts holding assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue since assessing officer failed to inquire source of source of investment made in share capital of the appellant company. 8. Ld. Pr. CIT erred in law and on facts in setting aside scrutiny assessment order ... case under consideration, the assessment year involved is the assessment year (AY) 2018- 19 wherein, the assessee needs to explain the “source of source”, which is second degree of evidences. The ld.DR also pointed out that some of the shareholders were not submitted their balance sheets before

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Gautam Malhotra, Faridkot

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 677/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.677/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit- Central Circle-2 Shri Gautam Malhotra Sco 1-6, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ S/O Shri Deep Malhotra Kitchlu Nagar Near Bvm School Old Cantt Road Vs. Ludhiana-141001. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aigpm-9197-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manav Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana [Cit(A)] Dated 30-03-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S.143(3)Of The Act On 30-12-2019. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue Is Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.305 Lacs As Made By Ld. Ao U/S 68 Of The Act. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

shape of documentary evidences pertaining to those persons who had lent money to these two lenders. However, Ld. AO still doubted the source of source and pointed out deficiencies in the documentary evidences. The adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) is contained in para 5.2.3 onwards. It was noted ... assessee furnished, PAN, confirmation of accounts, copies of Income Tax Returns and Bank statements. The assessee also provided documents relating to source of source to explain the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan givers. The Ld. CIT(A) concurred that the assessee furnished complete details of the transactions