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.

15 results for “charitable trust”+ Unexplained Cash Creditclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi151Mumbai67Chennai62Jaipur33Chandigarh20Ahmedabad19Lucknow16Pune16Cochin15Bangalore15Indore10Allahabad10Amritsar9Hyderabad9Kolkata8Agra5Nagpur4Cuttack3Raipur3Surat3Varanasi2Rajkot1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)18Section 6812Section 4012Addition to Income10Section 153C8Unexplained Cash Credit7Exemption7Section 12A5Section 1325Section 153A

M/S. PENTAGON BUILDERS,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009 are allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 ...

ITA 79/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

For Appellant: Sri. G.Surendranatha RaoFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR
Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 194CSection 40Section 40A

cash credit based on the statements already filed is not in order.” 4. The learned AR for the assessee submitted that the additional ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of additions made by the A.O. for assessments which are completed / unabated as on the date of search in the absence of seized materials is a legal issue emanating

5
Charitable Trust5
Section 250(6)4

M/S. PENTAGON BUILDERS,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009 are allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 ...

ITA 81/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

For Appellant: Sri. G.Surendranatha RaoFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR
Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 194CSection 40Section 40A

cash credit based on the statements already filed is not in order.” 4. The learned AR for the assessee submitted that the additional ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of additions made by the A.O. for assessments which are completed / unabated as on the date of search in the absence of seized materials is a legal issue emanating

M/S. PENTAGON BUILDERS,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009 are allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 ...

ITA 80/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

For Appellant: Sri. G.Surendranatha RaoFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR
Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 194CSection 40Section 40A

cash credit based on the statements already filed is not in order.” 4. The learned AR for the assessee submitted that the additional ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of additions made by the A.O. for assessments which are completed / unabated as on the date of search in the absence of seized materials is a legal issue emanating

SREEPATHY TRUST,THRISSUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRLE 1(1) , THRISSUR

In the result, both the captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 66/COCH/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 68

unexplained cash credit. The reassessed total income was computed at ₹3,40,53,543. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A), after examining the matter, upheld the order of the AO. It was observed that while the assessee had provided certain lists of depositors or creditors, it failed

SREEPATHY TRUST,THRISSUR vs. CIT, CIRCLE 1, THRISSUR

In the result, both the captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 65/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 68

unexplained cash credit. The reassessed total income was computed at ₹3,40,53,543. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A), after examining the matter, upheld the order of the AO. It was observed that while the assessee had provided certain lists of depositors or creditors, it failed

KAOSER CHARITABLE TRUST,KANNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for

ITA 486/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj, Sr AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 272A(2)(e)Section 68

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and ITA No.487/Coch/2025 relating to assessment year 2015-16 is against levy of penalty u/s.272A(2)(e) of the Act. Since both these appeals are relating to common assessee, we are deciding these appeals by way of this common order. 3. At the outset, it is noted that both these appeals have

KAOSER CHARITABLE TRUST,KANNUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for

ITA 487/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj, Sr AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 272A(2)(e)Section 68

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and ITA No.487/Coch/2025 relating to assessment year 2015-16 is against levy of penalty u/s.272A(2)(e) of the Act. Since both these appeals are relating to common assessee, we are deciding these appeals by way of this common order. 3. At the outset, it is noted that both these appeals have

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

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 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

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 75/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

unexplained variation therein, guided more by the fact of the assessee operating in a commercial environment, on commercial lines, charging lease rent to the industrial units at the going market rate/s. If that does not translate into profit for a particular year/s, which could be for a variety of reasons, is another matter. Why, even businesses suffer losses, which

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 77/COCH/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

unexplained variation therein, guided more by the fact of the assessee operating in a commercial environment, on commercial lines, charging lease rent to the industrial units at the going market rate/s. If that does not translate into profit for a particular year/s, which could be for a variety of reasons, is another matter. Why, even businesses suffer losses, which

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 76/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

unexplained variation therein, guided more by the fact of the assessee operating in a commercial environment, on commercial lines, charging lease rent to the industrial units at the going market rate/s. If that does not translate into profit for a particular year/s, which could be for a variety of reasons, is another matter. Why, even businesses suffer losses, which