← 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

Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 160/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

income of the appellant. The AO did not appreciate that fact that the three (3) ingredients required for section 68 i.e., Identity, Source of source and genuinity of the transaction was well established by the appellant. For the identity Copy of the IT return alongwith the Balance Sheet ... copy of the Assessment Order was duly submitted to the AO. In regards to the Source of source, copy of the bank Statement of the shareholder companies showing the funds available was duly submitted during the Assessment Proceedings. In regards to the Genuineness of the transaction, confirmation

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Hilton Infrastructure, Mumbai

ITA 3532/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3456/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3455/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3454/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3453/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3452/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3451/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3450/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3449/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nag
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

cash credit represented by share application monies of Rs.5,38,35,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. According to the AO, the source of source of the monies received from shareholder, M/s Hari Trafin Pvt Ltd was not properly explained, and therefore the same was added as unexplained

Hilton Infrastructure, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

ITA 3456/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3456/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3455/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3454/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3453/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3452/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3451/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3450/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3449/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nag
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

cash credit represented by share application monies of Rs.5,38,35,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. According to the AO, the source of source of the monies received from shareholder, M/s Hari Trafin Pvt Ltd was not properly explained, and therefore the same was added as unexplained

Hilton Infrastructure, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

ITA 3453/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3456/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3455/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3454/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3453/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3452/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3451/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3450/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3449/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nag
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

cash credit represented by share application monies of Rs.5,38,35,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. According to the AO, the source of source of the monies received from shareholder, M/s Hari Trafin Pvt Ltd was not properly explained, and therefore the same was added as unexplained

Hilton Infrastructure, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

ITA 3451/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3456/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3455/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3454/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3453/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3452/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3451/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3450/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3449/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nag
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

cash credit represented by share application monies of Rs.5,38,35,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. According to the AO, the source of source of the monies received from shareholder, M/s Hari Trafin Pvt Ltd was not properly explained, and therefore the same was added as unexplained

Hilton Infrastructure, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

ITA 3450/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3456/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3455/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3454/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3453/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3452/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3451/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3450/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3449/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nag
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

cash credit represented by share application monies of Rs.5,38,35,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. According to the AO, the source of source of the monies received from shareholder, M/s Hari Trafin Pvt Ltd was not properly explained, and therefore the same was added as unexplained

Hilton Infrastrucutre, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

ITA 3449/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3456/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3455/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3454/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3453/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3452/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3451/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3450/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3449/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nag
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

cash credit represented by share application monies of Rs.5,38,35,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. According to the AO, the source of source of the monies received from shareholder, M/s Hari Trafin Pvt Ltd was not properly explained, and therefore the same was added as unexplained