What is CIT v. Taj Borewells authority for?

The assessee has a duty to maintain and produce comprehensive books of account, including cash book, bank book, ledger accounts, and supporting bills/vouchers. A mere Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account may not be considered sufficient "books of account" to substantiate claims or discharge the onus under Section 68 regarding cash credits.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Taj Borewells?

52 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Taj Borewells (291 ITR 232), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Taj Borewells come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 115BBE, Section 143(2), Section 144, Section 69, Section 69C.

CIT v. Taj Borewells (291 ITR 232)

ACIT, Circle-51(1), New Delhi vs. Ambika Enterprises, New Delhi

In the result, appeal by Revenue stand, dismissed

ITA 31/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 68

…ITA No.- 31/Del/2020 Ambika Enterprises IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No:- 31/Del/2020 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Assistant Commissioner of M/s Ambika Income Tax, Vs. Enterprises,\38/2093, Circle 51(1), Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi-110005. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN No: ABEFA0870D Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR Assessee By : Shri kapil Goel, Adv. Date of Hearing : 13.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 21 .07.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M. This appeal by the Revenu…

Clayton Charles Pinto, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 102/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleclayton Charles Pinto Mumbai. V. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Mumbai. Air India Building, Mumbai- 400021 303 Palm Beach Apartments, 31 J P Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400061

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…ll within the ambit of section 68. There are many other judicial decisions by various authorities where it is held that addition under section 68 cannot be made if no books of accounts are maintained. Few of them are cited below:  CIT v Taj Borewells [2007] 291 ITR 232 (Mad)  Smt Shanta Devi v. CIT (1988) 37 Taxman 104 (Punj & Har) A  Amitabh Bansal v. ITO (2019] 102 taxmann.com 229/175 ITD 401 (Delhi- Trib.)  Anand Ram Raitoni v. CIT (1997) 223 ITR 544 (Gauhati High Court)  ITO v. Kamal Kumar Mishra (2013) 143 ITD 0686 (Lucknow Tribunal)  Babbal Bhatia v. ITO (2018) (Delhi ITAT)  Baladin Ram v. CIT (1969…

Mr. P. Narasimha Rao, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Mangaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 840/BANG/2022[201-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…iled by the assessee before the assessing authority cannot be considered as a books of accounts, as contemplated u/s 68 of the Act. Thus, the view of ours fortified by the judgement of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Taj Borewells reported in 291 ITR 232 wherein held as follows: “The P&L a/c of a trade is the statement wherein the various items of profit and revenue on the one hand and the losses and expenditure on the other hand, are collected and offset, the one class against the other, that is, in compiling such an account being debit all the losses, credit all the gains. The resulting balance…

V.L Jewellers, Delhi vs. Circle-49(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.836/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम V.L. Jewellers, Pr. Commissioner Of 2775, 1St Floor, Gali No. 20-21, Vs. Income Tax, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Circle 49(1), New Delhi. Room No. 1202, 12, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadfv7989A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…v. CIT xii) 268 ITR 381 (Pat) CIT v. Md. Perwez Ahmad and Others xiii) 282 CTR 200 (Pat) CIT v. Anurag Rice Mills xiv) 268 ITR 381 (Pat) CIT v. Md. Parwez Ahmad 30 I.T.A.No.836/Del/2022 xv) 400 ITR 120 (Jhar.) Prayag Tendu Leaves Processing Co. v. CIT xvi) 291 ITR 232 (Mad.) CIT v. Taj Borewells xvii) ITA No. 2912/D/2014 dated 20.12.2017 Shri Gems v. ITO xviii) ITA No. 3734/D/2018 dated 29.3.2019 AMS Roadlines vs. DCIT It is further submitted that during the assessment the date wise introduction of capital by the partners was submitted on 05-12=2019 along with the source of their capital introduction with the…

ACIT Central-2, Indore vs. M/S Mayur Industries, Fatepur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 212/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniit(Ss)A No.212/Ind/2021 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs. Acit, Central-2, M/S. Mayur Industries, Indore Khandwa "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abefm 4664 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri P. K. Mishra, Cit.D.R. Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Assessee By : 19.12.2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2023 O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Bhopal (M.P.) (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed By The Dcit (Central)-2, Indore (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘A.Y.’) 2018-19 With The Following Ground:

For Appellant: 19.12.2022For Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…T v. Jaiswal Motor Finance [1983] 141 ITR 706 (Allahabad) (iv) Narayandas Kedarnath v. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 18 (Bombay) SS 212 of 2021 9 Mayur Ind. (v) CIT Versus Pankaj Dyestuff Industries [Income Tax Reference No. 241 of 1993] (vi) CIT v. Taj Borewells [2007] 291 ITR 232 (Madras) (vii) Deluxe Enterprises v. ITO, Ward-1, Solan [2017] 184 TTJ 394 (Chandigarh - Trib.) (viii) Addl. CIT v. Unique Builders [2004] 2 SOT 589 (KOL.)(SMC) 10. It was further submitted that it is a well settled proposition of law that the Assessing Officer cannot ask the assessee firm to prove source of source i.e. source of capital introdu…

M/S Central India Minerals, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 1(4), Nagpur

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 168/NAG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: For Revenue : Shri Kailash Kanojiya, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, D.R

Section 144Section 153CSection 292CSection 68

…r Smt. Kusum N. Daga. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant arguments as a catena of case law i.e., Abhyudaya Pharmaceuticals vs., CIT [2013] 350 ITR 358 (Alld.); CIT vs., M.Venkateswara Rao & Others [2015] 370 ITR 212 [T & A.P]; CIT vs., Taj Borewells [2007] 291 ITR 232 (Mad.) and PCIT vs., Vaishnodevi Refoils and Stuff Ltd., [2018] 89 taxmann.com 80 (Guj.) has unanimously settled the issue that such an addition involving partner’s capital account of a firm has to be made in the partner’s hands than that of the concerned Firm. We, thus, delete both these identical additions for these precise reason alone. 6. Ld…

M/S Central India Minerals, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 1(4), Nagpur

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 167/NAG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: For Revenue : Shri Kailash Kanojiya, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, D.R

Section 144Section 153CSection 292CSection 68

…r Smt. Kusum N. Daga. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant arguments as a catena of case law i.e., Abhyudaya Pharmaceuticals vs., CIT [2013] 350 ITR 358 (Alld.); CIT vs., M.Venkateswara Rao & Others [2015] 370 ITR 212 [T & A.P]; CIT vs., Taj Borewells [2007] 291 ITR 232 (Mad.) and PCIT vs., Vaishnodevi Refoils and Stuff Ltd., [2018] 89 taxmann.com 80 (Guj.) has unanimously settled the issue that such an addition involving partner’s capital account of a firm has to be made in the partner’s hands than that of the concerned Firm. We, thus, delete both these identical additions for these precise reason alone. 6. Ld…

ITO, Ncw - I (4), Chennai vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 577/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & C.O. Nos. 06 & 07/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. No. 576 & 577/Chny/2020] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), No. 8/20, Second Cross Street, Chennai – 600 034. Nandanam Extension, Nandanam, Chennai 600 085. [Pan: Aakfn6811A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai, Both Dated 16.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Against Deletion Of Quantum Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Deletion Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The First

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ustained in law.” 7.8 By agreeing with the views expressed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of India Rice Mills v. CIT (supra), similar findings were also given by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Taj Borewells [2007] 291 ITR 232 (Mad), which has been relied upon and reproduced relevant portions by the ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order besides relying upon various case law on this 17 I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/20 & C.O. Nos.06 & 07/Chny/21 issue. The head-notes in the case of CIT v. Taj Borewells (supra) are reproduced as under: “CASH CREDITS – CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR APP…

ITO, Ncw - I (4), Chennai vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 576/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & C.O. Nos. 06 & 07/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. No. 576 & 577/Chny/2020] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), No. 8/20, Second Cross Street, Chennai – 600 034. Nandanam Extension, Nandanam, Chennai 600 085. [Pan: Aakfn6811A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai, Both Dated 16.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Against Deletion Of Quantum Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Deletion Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The First

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ustained in law.” 7.8 By agreeing with the views expressed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of India Rice Mills v. CIT (supra), similar findings were also given by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Taj Borewells [2007] 291 ITR 232 (Mad), which has been relied upon and reproduced relevant portions by the ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order besides relying upon various case law on this 17 I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/20 & C.O. Nos.06 & 07/Chny/21 issue. The head-notes in the case of CIT v. Taj Borewells (supra) are reproduced as under: “CASH CREDITS – CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR APP…