← 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

Mukalel Philip Jose, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward-4, Kannur

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

ITA 876/COCH/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mukalel Philip Jose .......... Appellant Mukalel House, Pushpagiri, Taliparamba Kannur 670141 [Pan: Acnpj4619F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Kannur .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Thane [Cit(A)] Dated 20.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Salary’. The Return Of Income For Ay 2011-12 Was Filed On 10.08.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 2,07,790/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Kannur (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 23.01.2014 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At Total Income Of Rs.

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

approach adopted by the CIT(A) is untenable in the eyes of law as the CIT(A) cannot go to the source of source of the cash deposits as addition was made u/s. 69A of the Act. The CIT(A) ought not have rejected the explanation without giving

Spa Constructions, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1132/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1132/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Spa Constructions Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8(1) Pan:Adffs5436E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Rama Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Spa Constructions (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 14.06.2025 For The A.Y 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Advocate S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: : Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

proving the “source of the source” is concerned, we find that the said objection is misplaced. The requirement of proving “source of source” was brought into the statute by the Finance Act, 2022 by inserting additional conditions in section 68 of the Act with effect from