BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

99 results for “capital gains”+ Unexplained Cash Creditclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai765Delhi393Jaipur238Ahmedabad217Chennai160Kolkata126Hyderabad121Cochin99Bangalore89Indore78Nagpur71Pune70Chandigarh61Surat49Amritsar32Rajkot29Panaji29Guwahati28Visakhapatnam28Raipur26Lucknow23Jodhpur15Patna13Agra8Jabalpur6Ranchi6Cuttack6Dehradun1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 250114Section 143(3)39Section 13230Addition to Income28Section 153A26Section 14819Section 143(2)16Cash Deposit16Reassessment15

SULPHI SAINUDEEN SUNJU,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO WARD 1 & TPS, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 701/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajasekhar, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 263Section 68

cash deposits were taxed at prescribed rates u/s 115BBE @ 60% plus surcharge © 25%, the unexplained credits in the capital account was omitted to be taxed at these prescribed rates in accordance with Page 4 of 8 provisions of section 115BBE. These unexplained credits found in the capital account amounting to Rs.3.99 crores ought to have also been taxed at special

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

Showing 1–20 of 99 · Page 1 of 5

Search & Seizure15
Section 6810
Section 139(4)7

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 212/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

credited to the reserve and surplus account, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 211/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

credited to the reserve and surplus account, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 209/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

credited to the reserve and surplus account, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 208/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

credited to the reserve and surplus account, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost

MRS.REENA JOSE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 207/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

credited to the reserve and surplus account, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost

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

credit for Rs.21.40 lakhs, withdrawn cash from the OD account, i.e., assuming it being recycled, which would though have to be shown so, would reduce the addition qua unexplained cash 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

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

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

credit for Rs.21.40 lakhs, withdrawn cash from the OD account, i.e., assuming it being recycled, which would though have to be shown so, would reduce the addition qua unexplained cash 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

SRI.S.BASKAR SAIT,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, TRICHUR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 226/COCH/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Jan 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Kittu Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

Unexplained credits in 2,48,250 banks Addition towards capital 2,35,378 3,34,504 gain 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) for AY 2002-03 gave partial relief with regard to the loan credits not proved for an amount of Rs.13,30,000. With regard to other disallowances

SRI.S.BASKAR SAIT,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, TRICHUR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 225/COCH/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Jan 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Kittu Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

Unexplained credits in 2,48,250 banks Addition towards capital 2,35,378 3,34,504 gain 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) for AY 2002-03 gave partial relief with regard to the loan credits not proved for an amount of Rs.13,30,000. With regard to other disallowances

SASI CHELLAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 750/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Surendranath Rao, CA
Section 56Section 68

unexplained cash credit. PRAYER For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the addition made may be deleted.” Page 3 of 6 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an agriculturist and also running a money lending business. The assessee filed his return

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. ALLEBASI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS (P) LTD, ATTINGAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection stand dismissed

ITA 317/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

unexplained cash credit whereas the same has already been added substantially in the case of one of the family member of director. Therefore the addition made resulted in double taxation and is bad in fact and should be deleted. 6. That the assessment order was passed against the principles of natural justice. The order was passed without giving the assessee

RAJU JOSEPH VAYALAT,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 273/COCH/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The AO further observed that the assessee had sold land for Rs. 44,39,000 and claimed cost of improvement of Rs. 35,77,949 while computing capital gains

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

capital gains in the hands of the appellant can be restored to the file of the AO to adopt the correct share of the appellant in the property. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Ground of appeal Nos. 1-14 challenges the addition made u/s. 69A of the Act treating the cash

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR, THRISSUR vs. KONUPARAMBAN OUSEPH ITTOOP, POTTA CHALAKKUDY

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 257/COCH/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2013-14 Konuparamban Ouseph Ittoop .......... Appellant Potta, Thrissur – 680722. Pan: Aacpi9545G Vs. Dcit .......... Respondent Thrissur. Assessment Year:2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sathish John Kanichai, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 263

unexplained investment. 14. The AO made addition of Rs. 3,33,94,646/- based on the cash flow statement recast by the Assessing Officer. The correctness of the cash flow 7 Konuparamban Ouseph Ittoop vs. DCIT DCIT vs. Konuparamban Ouseph Ittoop statement recast by the AO was challenged before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide para

BATHX BATHWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHIN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 436/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

gain, and with no indication that these credits were related to investments in the foreign entity, the argument stands that these transactions were purely for charitable purposes. The lack of material evidence to suggest otherwise leads to the conclusion that these payments do not support the revenue’s claim of unaccounted investment. 20.20 Without prejudice to the above finding

RUCHIT PARIMAL ASHAR,SANALA ROAD, MORBI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 506/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

gain, and with no indication that these credits were related to investments in the foreign entity, the argument stands that these transactions were purely for charitable purposes. The lack of material evidence to suggest otherwise leads to the conclusion that these payments do not support the revenue’s claim of unaccounted investment. 20.20 Without prejudice to the above finding

ABC BUILDWAERS INDIA (P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 456/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

gain, and with no indication that these credits were related to investments in the foreign entity, the argument stands that these transactions were purely for charitable purposes. The lack of material evidence to suggest otherwise leads to the conclusion that these payments do not support the revenue’s claim of unaccounted investment. 20.20 Without prejudice to the above finding

ABC SALES CORPORATION,KASARAGOD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 439/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

gain, and with no indication that these credits were related to investments in the foreign entity, the argument stands that these transactions were purely for charitable purposes. The lack of material evidence to suggest otherwise leads to the conclusion that these payments do not support the revenue’s claim of unaccounted investment. 20.20 Without prejudice to the above finding

RUCHIT PARIMAL ASHAR,SANALA ROAD, MORBI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 505/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

gain, and with no indication that these credits were related to investments in the foreign entity, the argument stands that these transactions were purely for charitable purposes. The lack of material evidence to suggest otherwise leads to the conclusion that these payments do not support the revenue’s claim of unaccounted investment. 20.20 Without prejudice to the above finding