← 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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Vrinda Farms Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4849/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Acit, Central Circle 4, Vs. Vrinda Farms Private Limited, New Delhi. 43, Community Centre, Bhageria House, Zakir Nagar, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110 025. (Pan : Aaacv0355L) Co Nos.13 & 19/Del/2025 (In Ita No.4849/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Vrinda Farms Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 4, 43, Community Centre, New Delhi. Bhageria House, Zakir Nagar, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110 025. (Pan : Aaacv0355L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Order : 29.10.2025 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 68

persons from whom the lenders have taken they are duly submitted so as to prove the source as well as the source of source of funds received.  Further the CIT(A) has held that addition made by AO is not tenable as AO himself has accepted that ... prove that unsecured loans were taken in exchange of Cash Payments.  The source as well as the source of source have been provided by the assessee. 8 CO Nos.13 & 19/Del/2025  Assessee also submitted the Affidavits of Ankit Bhageria and Purushottam Bhageria retracting the statement recorded

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Meerut, Income Tax Office vs. Umalok Charitable Trust, Meerut

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1644/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.1644/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Aayakar Bhawan, Near Bhainsali Ground, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Meerut, Uttar Pradesh 250001 बनाम Vs. Umalok Charitable Trust, C-111, Samart Place, Garh Road, Meerut, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Uttar Pradesh 250004 Pan: Aaatu-1532-F अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit(Dr) "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Advocate सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 24/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Noida [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 14.02.2024, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Revenue In Appeal Has Primarily Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) On Two Counts:- (I) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,11,00,000/- Made On Account Of Unexplained Advances; & (Ii) Deleting The Disallowance Of Exemption Claimed By The Assessee U/S.10(23C)Of The Act Rs.84,22,244/-.

For Appellant: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Advocate
Section 10Section 10(23)(c)Section 12ASection 153C

hands of the assessee. In First Appellate proceedings, the assessee not only explained the transaction but also substantiated the source of source for making investments by the trustees on behalf of the assessee trust. It was also explained that since the transaction did not materialized the advances made