Sri Ram Tandon v. CIT

42 ITR 689High Court1961#5283 most cited

What is Sri Ram Tandon v. CIT authority for?

Cash sales and their corresponding cash deposits are a regular feature of business activities for an assessee, even if buyer details are not consistently recorded on invoices.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sri Ram Tandon v. CIT · 42 ITR 689 · cash sales · cash deposits · business activities · unverified buyers · income tax assessment · section 145(3) · section 68 · unexplained cash credit

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 43BSection 68Section 114BSection 145(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 145(3)section 44abaddition u/s 68section 145section 115bbsection 115bdouble taxationincome-tax officersection 115bbeunexplained cash creditsection 115section 68

Judgments citing Sri Ram Tandon v. CIT

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT CC-28, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3744/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…h on hand for a such a large number of days. That, no doubt, is highly suspicious; but the decision of the Tribunal must rest not on suspicion but on legal testimony.” xxix. Further the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sri Ram Tandon Vs. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 689 ordained as under: “It appears extremely difficult to appreciate how the Tribunal thought it necessary or proper to make an estimate of 35 notes at Rs. 1,000 each to have been contained in the cash balance. The Tribunal has given no reason whatever for its finding that the assessee possessed 35 notes of Rs. 1,000 each on the day the Ordinance was…

Sanjay Singh, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6097/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. L. M. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobani, Sr. DR
Section 68

…anjay Singh " M.A. Limiter Kutty (1992) 198 ITR 147 (Ker.) " RBN Naidu Vs CIT (1956) 29 ITR 194 (Nag.) " Chunnilal Tikamchand Coal Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1955) 30 ITR 181 (SC) " Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) " Sri Ram Tandon Vs CIT (1961) 42 ITR 689 (All.) " Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All.) " Ali Huesin Vs STO (1988) 68 STC 319 (Ori) " Ashok Electro Diamonds Vs Jt. CTO (1971) 28 STC 21 (Mad.) " EMC Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (1963) 49 ITR 650 (All.) " Mahboob Singh Subhash Chand Arhati Vs CST (1988) STC 229 " Munnalal Murlidhar Vs CIT (1971) 79 ITR 540 (All.) " KS Seth Gopikis…