← 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

Nice Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 921/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Nice Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata 1St Floor, 134/1, M.G. Road, Vs Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007. Pan: Aaccn 8291 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 19.07.2023 For The Ay 2012-13. 2. Issue Raised In Ground No. 2 To 5 Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order Of Ao Wherein The Ao Has Made Addition Of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- On Account Of Share Capital / Share Premium As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

that the assessee has filed all the evidences/details/information such as audited accounts, shareholders allotment letters, bank statements, memorandum of article of associations, source of source and ledger copies etc. The Ld. A.R argued that the AO has solely and merely made an addition on the ground that though ... matter of furnishing evidences comprising names, addresses, share allotment letters, bank statements, memorandum of article of association, source of source, ledger copies which were duly filed before the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) has affirmed the order of AO which was passed by the AO on the sole

M/S. Shivam Developers, Gandhinagar vs. The DCIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 226/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Shivam Developers The Dy.Cit Plot No.C/1, 1301, Phase-I Vs Mehsana Circle Gidc, Chhatral, Tal.Kalol Mehsana Dist. Gandhinagar – 382 229 Pan: Abwfs 4815 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar & Shri Daivat Bhatt, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashesh R. Rewar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthe Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S.Shivam Developers Vs. Dcit Mehsana Asst. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, AR &For Respondent: Shri Ashesh R. Rewar, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 69C

possession of sufficient and adequate material. Further the assessee cannot be presumed to have special notice about the source of source or origin of origin. Once the assessee has explained the source of the funds having come from the depositors as an explanation to support the loans

Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh Chudasama, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

The appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 199/AHD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarita Nos: 198 & 199/Ahd/2022 Asst. Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Shri Dushyantsinh The Dcit Yadvendrasinh Chudasama Vs Circle-1(2) R.S. No.175/11/2 Vadodara Valavav Salvi Timba Road, Savli, Vadodara -391 774, Gujarat Pan : Acrpc1888M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumarboth The Above Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee As Against Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 25.03.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)-Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Arising Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Relating To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. Since Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals (Except Change In Figures), These Were Heard Together & The Same Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

supported with documentary evidence which was provided to the AO and the CIT(A) and your Appellant is not required to prove source of source as held by various Authorities. B. On Business Income 1. Your Appellant submits that he is engaged in business of trading in petrol

Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh Chudasama, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

The appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 198/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarita Nos: 198 & 199/Ahd/2022 Asst. Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Shri Dushyantsinh The Dcit Yadvendrasinh Chudasama Vs Circle-1(2) R.S. No.175/11/2 Vadodara Valavav Salvi Timba Road, Savli, Vadodara -391 774, Gujarat Pan : Acrpc1888M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumarboth The Above Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee As Against Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 25.03.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)-Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Arising Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Relating To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. Since Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals (Except Change In Figures), These Were Heard Together & The Same Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

supported with documentary evidence which was provided to the AO and the CIT(A) and your Appellant is not required to prove source of source as held by various Authorities. B. On Business Income 1. Your Appellant submits that he is engaged in business of trading in petrol