BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

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.

179 results for “capital gains”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,522Delhi1,365Chennai570Jaipur442Bangalore397Ahmedabad386Kolkata339Hyderabad281Cochin179Chandigarh178Indore159Pune147Nagpur98Surat98Visakhapatnam91Karnataka73Rajkot67Amritsar63Raipur42Calcutta41Lucknow39Cuttack38Panaji35Guwahati29Agra27Jodhpur23Telangana19Jabalpur15Dehradun12SC12Patna10Ranchi9Varanasi8Allahabad5Orissa4Rajasthan4Kerala1Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 25069Section 143(3)43Addition to Income36Section 26329Section 37(1)26Section 153C14Disallowance14Capital Gains13Deduction13Section 132

SRI.MATHEW PHILIP,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year:2015-16

Section 69

capital gains and other sources. The assessee is having bank accounts in Union Bank of India, State Bank of India and Central Bank of India. The details of cash transactions from 31/12/2013 to 31/03/2015 is as follows: Date Particulars Amount Amount 31/12/2013 Cash withdrawn from UBI SB 5000000 A/c No.396702010004711 12/02/2014 Cash deposited

THE ITO,, COCHIN vs. LATE SRI.K.SASIDHARAN REP BY SMT. K.P.SAILAJA, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 56/COCH/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Showing 1–20 of 179 · Page 1 of 9

...
12
Section 115B10
Section 4010
Bench:
Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

deposit the said capital gains in an account which is duly notified by the Central Government. In other words, if the assessee claims exemption from payment of income tax by retaining the cash

ROSE GEORGE KOLLANUR,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 610/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V Ramnath, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

cash and statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The AO denied the benefit of deduction u/s. 54F to the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not deposited the unutilised amount towards purchase of the new asset in the capital gains

SRI.ESSA ISMAIL SAIT,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-2(1),, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 605/COCH/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

capital gains from the sale of M/s. Kavitha Theatre at an amount of Rs.6.5 crores as against the declared sale consideration of Rs.2,74,95,000/- shown by the assessee in the return of income. 5.5 In the meantime, the DDI (Inv-II), Ernakulam received information that there was suppression of sale consideration in the document of transfer

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.JOSE MATHEW, M/S.E.V.MTHAI & SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 450/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

capital gains from the sale of M/s. Kavitha Theatre at an amount of Rs.6.5 crores as against the declared sale consideration of Rs.2,74,95,000/- shown by the assessee in the return of income. 5.5 In the meantime, the DDI (Inv-II), Ernakulam received information that there was suppression of sale consideration in the document of transfer

THEACIT, CIR-1(1),EKM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 453/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

capital gains from the sale of M/s. Kavitha Theatre at an amount of Rs.6.5 crores as against the declared sale consideration of Rs.2,74,95,000/- shown by the assessee in the return of income. 5.5 In the meantime, the DDI (Inv-II), Ernakulam received information that there was suppression of sale consideration in the document of transfer

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.E.J.SONY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 355/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

capital gains from the sale of M/s. Kavitha Theatre at an amount of Rs.6.5 crores as against the declared sale consideration of Rs.2,74,95,000/- shown by the assessee in the return of income. 5.5 In the meantime, the DDI (Inv-II), Ernakulam received information that there was suppression of sale consideration in the document of transfer

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.TOMY MATHEW PARTNER OF MATHAI SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 419/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

capital gains from the sale of M/s. Kavitha Theatre at an amount of Rs.6.5 crores as against the declared sale consideration of Rs.2,74,95,000/- shown by the assessee in the return of income. 5.5 In the meantime, the DDI (Inv-II), Ernakulam received information that there was suppression of sale consideration in the document of transfer

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.MATHAI XAVIER, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 451/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

capital gains from the sale of M/s. Kavitha Theatre at an amount of Rs.6.5 crores as against the declared sale consideration of Rs.2,74,95,000/- shown by the assessee in the return of income. 5.5 In the meantime, the DDI (Inv-II), Ernakulam received information that there was suppression of sale consideration in the document of transfer

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.PAUL, EDAKATTUKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 449/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

capital gains from the sale of M/s. Kavitha Theatre at an amount of Rs.6.5 crores as against the declared sale consideration of Rs.2,74,95,000/- shown by the assessee in the return of income. 5.5 In the meantime, the DDI (Inv-II), Ernakulam received information that there was suppression of sale consideration in the document of transfer

THE ITO, WARD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.MARTIN JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 354/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

capital gains from the sale of M/s. Kavitha Theatre at an amount of Rs.6.5 crores as against the declared sale consideration of Rs.2,74,95,000/- shown by the assessee in the return of income. 5.5 In the meantime, the DDI (Inv-II), Ernakulam received information that there was suppression of sale consideration in the document of transfer

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 28/COCH/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

deposit was due on maturity only, i.e. 25.2.2012. It was explained that the correct rental income was computed by the assessee and included in the return filed u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961. As an explanation for the source of funds for the credits in bank accounts the assesseestated that he owned 5 acres of Rubber Estate, the trees

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 305/COCH/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

deposit was due on maturity only, i.e. 25.2.2012. It was explained that the correct rental income was computed by the assessee and included in the return filed u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961. As an explanation for the source of funds for the credits in bank accounts the assesseestated that he owned 5 acres of Rubber Estate, the trees

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 30/COCH/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

deposit was due on maturity only, i.e. 25.2.2012. It was explained that the correct rental income was computed by the assessee and included in the return filed u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961. As an explanation for the source of funds for the credits in bank accounts the assesseestated that he owned 5 acres of Rubber Estate, the trees

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. vs. THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 33/COCH/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

deposit was due on maturity only, i.e. 25.2.2012. It was explained that the correct rental income was computed by the assessee and included in the return filed u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961. As an explanation for the source of funds for the credits in bank accounts the assesseestated that he owned 5 acres of Rubber Estate, the trees

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 309/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

deposit was due on maturity only, i.e. 25.2.2012. It was explained that the correct rental income was computed by the assessee and included in the return filed u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961. As an explanation for the source of funds for the credits in bank accounts the assesseestated that he owned 5 acres of Rubber Estate, the trees

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. vs. THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 34/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

deposit was due on maturity only, i.e. 25.2.2012. It was explained that the correct rental income was computed by the assessee and included in the return filed u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961. As an explanation for the source of funds for the credits in bank accounts the assesseestated that he owned 5 acres of Rubber Estate, the trees

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 308/COCH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

deposit was due on maturity only, i.e. 25.2.2012. It was explained that the correct rental income was computed by the assessee and included in the return filed u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961. As an explanation for the source of funds for the credits in bank accounts the assesseestated that he owned 5 acres of Rubber Estate, the trees

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 29/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

deposit was due on maturity only, i.e. 25.2.2012. It was explained that the correct rental income was computed by the assessee and included in the return filed u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961. As an explanation for the source of funds for the credits in bank accounts the assesseestated that he owned 5 acres of Rubber Estate, the trees

THE ACIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SMT.GRACY BABU, ADOOR P.O.

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 239/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

deposit was due on maturity only, i.e. 25.2.2012. It was explained that the correct rental income was computed by the assessee and included in the return filed u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961. As an explanation for the source of funds for the credits in bank accounts the assesseestated that he owned 5 acres of Rubber Estate, the trees