← 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

Garv Associates, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Faridabad

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

ITA 1267/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Garv Associates, Ito Ward -1(3), Faridabad B/105, Green Field Colony, Sarai Khawaja, Faridabad, Haryana 121010 Vs. Pan Aajfg 5926 E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal, Ca Revenue For : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Nfac, New Delhi Dated 08.03.2023 For Ay 2012-13. 2. The Ld. Assessee’S Representative Submitted That The Assessee, Except Ground No. 10, Does Not Want To Press Other Grounds Of Appeal Hence, Other Grounds Of Appeal Are Dismissed. Remaining Sole Effective Ground No. 10 Reads As Follows:- 10) The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Interpreting Provision Of Section 68 After Considering Facts & Circumstances Of The Matter In Respect Of Unsecured Loans Of Rs. 40,00,000/-, Raising The Following Questions:- I. Whether, 'First Proviso' Of 'Section 68' Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Squarely Covered Transaction In The Nature Of Unsecured Loans' Or Shall Restricted To Credits On Account Of 'Share Application Money', 'Share Capital', Share Premium Etc.? Ii. Whether, As Per Provisions Of Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, The Assessee Has Not Discharged Its Initial Onus To Prove: (1) Identity Of The Creditor Lenders; (2) Credit-Worthiness Of The Creditor Lender; & (3) Genuineness Of The Transaction. By Submitting Following Set Of Documentation:

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal, CA
Section 68

Credit Worthiness' of the creditor lenders are their declared Income, ignoring 'Net Worth' of the Creditor Lenders? iv. WHETHER, examination of 'Source of sources' comes under the purview of Ld.AO of the assessee, even in case, Creditor Lenders are Income Tax Assesses and Assessment Details of such Creditor ... worth of the lenders is to be seem for deciding said point. He also pointed out that the examination of source of source is right of Assessing Officer and at the same time this cannot be ignored the creditors are income tax assessee and assessment details of said

Ronit Capital Management Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6679/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6679/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Ronit Capital बिधम/ Ito-4(2)(1) Management Ltd. 644, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Vs. 233, Shreeji Industrial K. Road, Mumbai- Estate, Subhash Road, 400020. Jogeshwari (E)-400060. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach9239D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Ms. Mitali Gopani Revenue By: Smt Riddhi Mishra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-9, Mumbai Dated 23.08.2019 For Ay. 2012-13 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition To The Tune Of Rs.10,43,77,000/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 3. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 30.09.2012 Declaring Total Income To The Tune Of Rs.70,768/-. Later, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny. The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Only Partly Complied With The Notice Issued By Him On 30.01.2015 & Therefore In View Of The Non-Compliance, He Framed Best Judgment Assessment U/S 144 Of The Act, Making Several Additions Totalling Rs 68.83 Crores, Which Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Ms. MitaliFor Respondent: Smt Riddhi Mishra (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 68

investments which were made in earlier years and/or refund of 16 A.Y. 2012-13 Ronit Capital Management Ltd. loans granted earlier. The source of source of funds has also been provided, which has already been discussed above. On these facts, in our considered view therefore, nothing much turns