Search: depreciation | 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.

22 results for “depreciation”+ Unexplained Cash Creditclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai441 Delhi316 Chennai109 Bangalore91 Jaipur90 Ahmedabad87 Kolkata80 Hyderabad50 Pune29 Chandigarh29 Indore26 Raipur25 Cochin22 Lucknow21 Visakhapatnam18 Guwahati17 Rajkot16 Amritsar15 Surat15 Nagpur13 Agra7 Allahabad7 Jodhpur7 Varanasi6 Cuttack6 Ranchi5 SC4 Patna4 Panaji3 Karnataka3 Jabalpur1 Telangana1 Kerala1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 153A25 Section 143(3)17 Section 143(2)16 Addition to Income13 Section 15410 Section 143(1)8 Section 1327 Section 139(4)7 Section 132(4)7 Depreciation

M/S.C&R HOTELS PVT. LTD,FORT KOCHI vs. THE DCIT,CORP CIR(1)(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 450/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K V Jose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR

Section 32(2)Section 68

depreciation and also treated the working capital received Page 2 of 5 from the share holders and Director as unexplained cash credit

QUADISIYYA HAJJ CELL,KOLLAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, KOLLAM

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

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

4

Unexplained Investment4

ITA 578/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed

ITAT Cochin

28 Jan 2025

AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18 Quadisiyya Hajj Cell Quadisiyya Complex Thazhuthala Ito Vs. Mukathala Po Ward-3 Kollam 691 577 Kollam Pan No :Aaafq3277H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

credits during the financial year 2016-17 amounting to Rs.3,35,25,792/- was treated as unexplained money from undisclosed sources of the partnership firm as provided in section 69A of the Act. 3.1 Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s 144 of the Act, the assessee has preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A). 3.2 The ld. CIT(A) also

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

unexplained investment. In appeal, the assessee obtained part relief on the basis of payment of Rs.16,00,000 supra on 17.01.2014 as being out of Rs.50 lakhs received on 23.12.2013 as consideration on sale of shares (in Manko). The relevant part of the appellate order reads as under: - “8.3 I have perused the assessment order. The assessment order clearly states

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

unexplained investment. In appeal, the assessee obtained part relief on the basis of payment of Rs.16,00,000 supra on 17.01.2014 as being out of Rs.50 lakhs received on 23.12.2013 as consideration on sale of shares (in Manko). The relevant part of the appellate order reads as under: - “8.3 I have perused the assessment order. The assessment order clearly states

TRICHUR HEART HOSPITAL LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 916/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

unexplained cash credit. Subsequently, during the performance audit by the Audit Party, it was observed that the assessee had claimed depreciation

CHENGAZHASSERIL THOMAS KURIAN,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 473/COCH/2022[ 2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

cash deficits found after such exclusion of financial transactions carried out by Smt. Mercy Kurian and Sri SunnyKutty Thomas are upheld.” 8.2 The assessee has before us, toward the same, relied on withdrawals for Rs.3.25 lakhs, Rs.3.50 lakhs and Rs.6.50 lakhs from his bank account with Meenachil East Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. (MEUCB

CHENGAZHASSERIL THOMAS KURIAN,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 472/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

cash deficits found after such exclusion of financial transactions carried out by Smt. Mercy Kurian and Sri SunnyKutty Thomas are upheld.” 8.2 The assessee has before us, toward the same, relied on withdrawals for Rs.3.25 lakhs, Rs.3.50 lakhs and Rs.6.50 lakhs from his bank account with Meenachil East Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. (MEUCB

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 48/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

cash deficits found after such exclusion of financial transactions carried out by Smt. Mercy Kurian and Sri SunnyKutty Thomas are upheld.” 8.2 The assessee has before us, toward the same, relied on withdrawals for Rs.3.25 lakhs, Rs.3.50 lakhs and Rs.6.50 lakhs from his bank account with Meenachil East Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. (MEUCB

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 50/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

cash deficits found after such exclusion of financial transactions carried out by Smt. Mercy Kurian and Sri SunnyKutty Thomas are upheld.” 8.2 The assessee has before us, toward the same, relied on withdrawals for Rs.3.25 lakhs, Rs.3.50 lakhs and Rs.6.50 lakhs from his bank account with Meenachil East Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. (MEUCB

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 49/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

cash deficits found after such exclusion of financial transactions carried out by Smt. Mercy Kurian and Sri SunnyKutty Thomas are upheld.” 8.2 The assessee has before us, toward the same, relied on withdrawals for Rs.3.25 lakhs, Rs.3.50 lakhs and Rs.6.50 lakhs from his bank account with Meenachil East Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. (MEUCB

CHENGAZHASSERIL THOMAS KURIAN,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 474/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

cash deficits found after such exclusion of financial transactions carried out by Smt. Mercy Kurian and Sri SunnyKutty Thomas are upheld.” 8.2 The assessee has before us, toward the same, relied on withdrawals for Rs.3.25 lakhs, Rs.3.50 lakhs and Rs.6.50 lakhs from his bank account with Meenachil East Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. (MEUCB

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 47/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

cash deficits found after such exclusion of financial transactions carried out by Smt. Mercy Kurian and Sri SunnyKutty Thomas are upheld.” 8.2 The assessee has before us, toward the same, relied on withdrawals for Rs.3.25 lakhs, Rs.3.50 lakhs and Rs.6.50 lakhs from his bank account with Meenachil East Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. (MEUCB

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)

Cash surplus turnove Financial Assessmen Interest Depreciation (Deficit) Turnover turno r Year t year Income including ver interest 2008-09

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)

Cash surplus turnove Financial Assessmen Interest Depreciation (Deficit) Turnover turno r Year t year Income including ver interest 2008-09

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)

Cash surplus turnove Financial Assessmen Interest Depreciation (Deficit) Turnover turno r Year t year Income including ver interest 2008-09

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

ITA 408/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R

Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

unexplained cash deposits amounting to Rs. 5,15,83,314/- (2,70,23,297 + 2,45,60,027) is undisclosed income u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and the same is added to the income of the assessee. 4.2 Further,the AO on perusal of Return and computation of Income, found that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.1

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

ITA 409/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R

Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

unexplained cash deposits amounting to Rs. 5,15,83,314/- (2,70,23,297 + 2,45,60,027) is undisclosed income u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and the same is added to the income of the assessee. 4.2 Further,the AO on perusal of Return and computation of Income, found that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.1

M/S KERALA AUTOMOBILES LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 176/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Kerala Automobiles Ltd. Asst. Cit, Aralumoodu P.O., Neyattinkara Circle 1(1), Vs. Trivandurm 695123 Trivandrum [Pan:Aabck0142M] (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Anand George Thomas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 251Section 68

cash loss, i.e., before depreciation; the return for the preceding three years being also at a loss. The Kerala Automobiles Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT assesseedid not respond to the several notices of hearing, detailed at para 4 of the assessment order. This was followed by notices u/ss. 142(1) and 144 of the Act, all of which were sent both

KK RADHAKRISHNAN,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed on the aforesaid terms, and stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 494/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das & Sa No. 104/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Ved, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153D

unexplained personal expenses on son’s education. 5. The assessee deserves award of cost.’ 3. The background facts of the case are that a search u/s. 132(1) of the Act was conducted at the assessee’s residence on 26.09.2012 pursuant to a warrant of authorization (WoA) dated 19.09.2012 issued in the case of M/s. K.K. Builders; K.K. Tourist Home

SHAHUL HAMEED,MANANTHAVADY vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 355/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 115Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 69

unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act, and therefore, applied the provisions of section 115-BBE for computing the tax liability of the assessee. It is evident from the record that while assessing the total income of the assessee, the AO carried forward the loss declared under the head “House Property” instead of setting off the same against