Search: capital gains | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court 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.

111 results for “capital gains”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai832 Delhi651 Jaipur276 Chennai238 Ahmedabad221 Hyderabad192 Bangalore179 Chandigarh128 Kolkata115 Cochin111 Indore85 Nagpur77 Pune60 Surat57 Visakhapatnam54 Amritsar39 Rajkot34 Lucknow34 Panaji30 Raipur27 Guwahati25 Cuttack19 Jodhpur14 Agra13 Jabalpur11 Patna9 Dehradun9 Ranchi6 Varanasi6 Allahabad3

Key Topics

Section 250121 Section 143(3)27 Addition to Income26 Section 153A21 Section 13219 Cash Deposit18 Section 143(2)16 Section 14815 Section 220(2)12 Section 154

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE,, THRISSUR vs. SRI.T.G. CHANDRAKUMAR, THRISSUR

In the result, the Appeal by the Revenue is allowed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 67/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, FCA

Section 132Section 153CSection 268A

capital-gains tax of Rs. 6.40 lacs, paid on 31.07.2008, a year later, is not out of the cash received, but out of Rs. 7.40 lacs deposited

SRI.K.P. JOHNY,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Showing 1–20 of 111 · Page 1 of 6

12

Search & Seizure11

ITA 206/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

deposit to Rs.76.24 lakhs. Be that it as may, we confirm the impugned addition for Rs.70.50 lakhs. We decide accordingly. This decides Grounds 2 to 4 of the assessee’s appeal; Gd. 1 being general in nature warranting no adjudication. (also refer para 10.1) Page 3 ITANos. 206 & 254/Coch/2019 (AY: 2014-15) K.P. Johny vs. Asst. CIT 6. The assessee

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR vs. SRI.K.P. JOHNY, THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

deposit to Rs.76.24 lakhs. Be that it as may, we confirm the impugned addition for Rs.70.50 lakhs. We decide accordingly. This decides Grounds 2 to 4 of the assessee’s appeal; Gd. 1 being general in nature warranting no adjudication. (also refer para 10.1) Page 3 ITANos. 206 & 254/Coch/2019 (AY: 2014-15) K.P. Johny vs. Asst. CIT 6. The assessee

SITARAM THRIKKUR SUBBARAMAN,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 398/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sitaram Thrikkur Subbaraman .......... Appellant Xxxi 289 Lakshmi Nivas, Pushpagiri Thrissur - 680002 [Pan: Aiops8626E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Jai Krishna, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Jai Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 69A

cash deposits were made out of business receipts of the partnership firm, M/s. Sitaram Auto Sales and Service in which the appellant was a partner, as the firm’s bank account was frozen by the bank for non repayment of loans. As regards the capital gains

VIJAYARANI PURUSHOTHAMAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

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

ITA 793/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 69

capital gains as carried out by AO is upheld and Ground No. 1 is accordingly dismissed. 6.3.8 So far as the addition u/s 69 in respect of cash deposits

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT LTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 698/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

cash deposit in the bank account of the Appellant company ignoring the explanations filed by the Appellant company. 5. That, the Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds.” 10 ITA 695 to 700 & 732 to 736/Coch/2024 Vrindavan Builders Pvt. Ltd. 13. Ground Nos. 1 to 1d challenges

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 735/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

cash deposit in the bank account of the Appellant company ignoring the explanations filed by the Appellant company. 5. That, the Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds.” 10 ITA 695 to 700 & 732 to 736/Coch/2024 Vrindavan Builders Pvt. Ltd. 13. Ground Nos. 1 to 1d challenges

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 736/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

cash deposit in the bank account of the Appellant company ignoring the explanations filed by the Appellant company. 5. That, the Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds.” 10 ITA 695 to 700 & 732 to 736/Coch/2024 Vrindavan Builders Pvt. Ltd. 13. Ground Nos. 1 to 1d challenges

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT LTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 697/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

cash deposit in the bank account of the Appellant company ignoring the explanations filed by the Appellant company. 5. That, the Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds.” 10 ITA 695 to 700 & 732 to 736/Coch/2024 Vrindavan Builders Pvt. Ltd. 13. Ground Nos. 1 to 1d challenges

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KERALA vs. VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 733/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

cash deposit in the bank account of the Appellant company ignoring the explanations filed by the Appellant company. 5. That, the Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds.” 10 ITA 695 to 700 & 732 to 736/Coch/2024 Vrindavan Builders Pvt. Ltd. 13. Ground Nos. 1 to 1d challenges

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 734/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

cash deposit in the bank account of the Appellant company ignoring the explanations filed by the Appellant company. 5. That, the Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds.” 10 ITA 695 to 700 & 732 to 736/Coch/2024 Vrindavan Builders Pvt. Ltd. 13. Ground Nos. 1 to 1d challenges

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT LTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 695/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

cash deposit in the bank account of the Appellant company ignoring the explanations filed by the Appellant company. 5. That, the Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds.” 10 ITA 695 to 700 & 732 to 736/Coch/2024 Vrindavan Builders Pvt. Ltd. 13. Ground Nos. 1 to 1d challenges

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT LTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 700/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

cash deposit in the bank account of the Appellant company ignoring the explanations filed by the Appellant company. 5. That, the Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds.” 10 ITA 695 to 700 & 732 to 736/Coch/2024 Vrindavan Builders Pvt. Ltd. 13. Ground Nos. 1 to 1d challenges

VRINDAVAN BHAVAN PVT LTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 699/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

cash deposit in the bank account of the Appellant company ignoring the explanations filed by the Appellant company. 5. That, the Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds.” 10 ITA 695 to 700 & 732 to 736/Coch/2024 Vrindavan Builders Pvt. Ltd. 13. Ground Nos. 1 to 1d challenges

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KERALA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 732/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

cash deposit in the bank account of the Appellant company ignoring the explanations filed by the Appellant company. 5. That, the Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds.” 10 ITA 695 to 700 & 732 to 736/Coch/2024 Vrindavan Builders Pvt. Ltd. 13. Ground Nos. 1 to 1d challenges

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT KTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 696/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

cash deposit in the bank account of the Appellant company ignoring the explanations filed by the Appellant company. 5. That, the Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds.” 10 ITA 695 to 700 & 732 to 736/Coch/2024 Vrindavan Builders Pvt. Ltd. 13. Ground Nos. 1 to 1d challenges

GOMATHY JALAJA,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 778/COCH/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Anoopa M.J., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153Section 153C

cash deposit made in the bank account as unexplained money of the appellant. 14. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order partially granted relief by restricting the addition to the extent of Rs. 9,00,000/-. 15. On further appeal before this Tribunal, the Tribunal vide order dated

GOMATHY JALAJA,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, THITUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 779/COCH/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Anoopa M.J., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153Section 153C

cash deposit made in the bank account as unexplained money of the appellant. 14. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order partially granted relief by restricting the addition to the extent of Rs. 9,00,000/-. 15. On further appeal before this Tribunal, the Tribunal vide order dated

GOMATHY JALAJA,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 780/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Anoopa M.J., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153Section 153C

cash deposit made in the bank account as unexplained money of the appellant. 14. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order partially granted relief by restricting the addition to the extent of Rs. 9,00,000/-. 15. On further appeal before this Tribunal, the Tribunal vide order dated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. ARUN RAJ PILLAI, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee company stands allowed

ITA 314/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)

cash deposits in the said accounts were directed to be excluded from the additions made to the taxable income of the assessee.” 9. Keeping in view this background we proceed to adjudicate the issues in the appeals. CO No. 5/Coch/2024 – AY : 2018-19 10. At the first instance we shall take up the assessee’s cross objection which goes