Search: capital gains | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

200 results for “capital gains”+ Unexplained Cash Creditclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,400 Delhi805 Kolkata447 Jaipur369 Chennai307 Ahmedabad298 Surat206 Bangalore200 Hyderabad188 Indore129 Pune122 Cochin112 Chandigarh94 Nagpur74 Calcutta48 Amritsar47 Guwahati45 Visakhapatnam35 Raipur33 Rajkot32 Panaji31 Lucknow31 Cuttack21 Agra20 Jodhpur15 Patna14 Karnataka8 Jabalpur7 Ranchi6 SC5 Telangana3 Rajasthan3 Allahabad3 Orissa2 Varanasi2 Dehradun1 Kerala1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income91 Section 153A89 Section 6879 Section 13263 Section 143(3)57 Section 153C43 Section 14837 Cash Deposit27 Section 133A25

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

ITA 312/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &

capital gain as business income 30.75 3. Unexplained cash credit 36 4. Unexplained cash credit 86.64 5. Total 161.91 11.1. The Ld. A.R. submitted

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

ITA 310/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Showing 1–20 of 200 · Page 1 of 10

...

Section 10(38)25

Capital Gains25

Natural Justice20

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.R

For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &

Section 153A

capital gain as business income 30.75 3. Unexplained cash credit 36 4. Unexplained cash credit 86.64 5. Total 161.91 11.1. The Ld. A.R. submitted

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

ITA 309/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &

capital gain as business income 30.75 3. Unexplained cash credit 36 4. Unexplained cash credit 86.64 5. Total 161.91 11.1. The Ld. A.R. submitted

K. G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

ITA 307/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &

capital gain as business income 30.75 3. Unexplained cash credit 36 4. Unexplained cash credit 86.64 5. Total 161.91 11.1. The Ld. A.R. submitted

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

ITA 308/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &

capital gain as business income 30.75 3. Unexplained cash credit 36 4. Unexplained cash credit 86.64 5. Total 161.91 11.1. The Ld. A.R. submitted

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

ITA 311/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &

capital gain as business income 30.75 3. Unexplained cash credit 36 4. Unexplained cash credit 86.64 5. Total 161.91 11.1. The Ld. A.R. submitted

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1405/BANG/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

capital gain 24,68,950 Unexplained cash credit in capital account 2,00,000 ------------ 46,48,288 ITA No.1405 to 1408/Bang/2013

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1408/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

capital gain 24,68,950 Unexplained cash credit in capital account 2,00,000 ------------ 46,48,288 ITA No.1405 to 1408/Bang/2013

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1407/BANG/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

capital gain 24,68,950 Unexplained cash credit in capital account 2,00,000 ------------ 46,48,288 ITA No.1405 to 1408/Bang/2013

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1406/BANG/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

capital gain 24,68,950 Unexplained cash credit in capital account 2,00,000 ------------ 46,48,288 ITA No.1405 to 1408/Bang/2013

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

ITA 1467/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Rao, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R

Section 147Section 68

capital account in a partnership firm m/s. Karkesia Estates shows distinctively In the financial statements and the same has been allowed by the same CIT(A) for A Y 2009- 10 on cumulative basis under the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos.1457, 1466, 1467/Bang/2012 & T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore Page 5 of 107 18. The learned

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. T.G. RANGANATH, BANGALORE

ITA 1457/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Rao, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R

Section 147Section 68

capital account in a partnership firm m/s. Karkesia Estates shows distinctively In the financial statements and the same has been allowed by the same CIT(A) for A Y 2009- 10 on cumulative basis under the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos.1457, 1466, 1467/Bang/2012 & T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore Page 5 of 107 18. The learned

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

ITA 173/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Rao, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R

Section 147Section 68

capital account in a partnership firm m/s. Karkesia Estates shows distinctively In the financial statements and the same has been allowed by the same CIT(A) for A Y 2009- 10 on cumulative basis under the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos.1457, 1466, 1467/Bang/2012 & T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore Page 5 of 107 18. The learned

KAMALA DEVI BAID,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(2)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1873/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 10(38)Section 68

capital gain on sale of shares as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] and adding

SHRI. JOGGERE ANANTH SANTOSH,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(5), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1867/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10(38)Section 68

capital gain (LTCG) on sale of shares declared by the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income

JOGGERE SAMPANGAPPA VENKATESH,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(2)(5), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1872/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10(38)Section 68

capital gain (LTCG) on sale of shares declared by the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income

SMT. MAHALAKSHMI,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1869/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10(38)Section 68

capital gain (LTCG) on sale of shares declared by the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income

SHRI. JOGGERE SAMPANGAPPA ANANTH,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1866/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10(38)Section 68

capital gain (LTCG) on sale of shares declared by the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income

SMT. SHEELA ANANTH,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1868/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10(38)Section 68

capital gain (LTCG) on sale of shares declared by the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA(HUF),BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2377/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Padmanabha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 10(38)Section 68

capital gain on sale of shares, as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] and adding