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.

192 results for “house property”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,311Mumbai1,111Chennai425Bangalore368Jaipur343Hyderabad291Kolkata196Cochin192Chandigarh189Ahmedabad186Pune130Indore127Karnataka110Visakhapatnam109Amritsar78Surat58Lucknow56Nagpur45Raipur43Calcutta40Cuttack39Telangana37Rajkot34Guwahati31Agra29Ranchi12Jodhpur11Patna11SC10Allahabad10Varanasi8Rajasthan7Dehradun5Jabalpur5Kerala2Orissa1J&K1Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 25061Addition to Income51Section 143(3)34Section 6933Section 26326Section 37(1)22Section 153C20Section 153A18Section 13214

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

house property, long term 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of cash transactions from 31/12/2013 to 31/03/2015 is as follows: Date Particulars Amount Amount 31/12/2013 Cash withdrawn from UBI SB 5000000 A/c No.396702010004711 12/02/2014 Cash deposited

SHRI.A.ABOOBACKER,PALAKKAD vs. THE ITO, WD-2,, PALAKKAD

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

ITA 506/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Shri George George K.

Showing 1–20 of 192 · Page 1 of 10

...
Unexplained Investment12
Deduction11
Disallowance10
Bench:
Section 143(2)

cash deposits in the Bank account are arising out of sale of agricultural land. For the above purpose, the assessee shall produce the witnesses to the sale agreement dated 05/02/2010 between the assessee and Shri Yusuf Haji, confirmations either from Yusuf Haji (purchaser as per sale agreement dated 05-02-2010) or Hussainar (the purchaser as per sale deed dated

SRI.THOMAS PULICKAL SEBASTIAN,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO,WD-4, KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 562/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Jameskutty Antony, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

house construction in Kottagiri. The Assessing Officer presumed that Rs.10 lakh withdrawn on 12.11.2010 would have been utilized / expended for some other purpose. This is only a presumption made by the A.O. and nothing has been brought out on record to suggest otherwise. It is true that when Rs.10 lakh is available, there would have been no necessity to make

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)

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 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)

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

THE ITO,, COCHIN vs. SRI.ABRAHAM VARGHESE CHARUVIL, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 30/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 143(2)

cash which is inclusive of consideration as per Sale Deed and the additional amount, popularly known as “On Money”, which he deposited in his bank account. He further stressed that before shifting to India, he worked abroad, i.e., Middle East, for a number of decades, and his income in India is income from house property

M/S.OBERON EDIFICES & ESTATES P. LTD,,KOCHI vs. THE PR.CIT,, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 361/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No. 361/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Oberon Edifices & Estates Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Oberon Mall, Income-Tax, Trivandrum. Nh Bye-Pass, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [Pan:Aaaco 7942E]

Section 263

deposits were taken from the tenants in addition to lease rentals. The income derived by the assessee from the said premises was offered for taxation as business income and the same was assessed accordingly by the Assessing Officer in the scrutiny assessment completed u/s. 143(3) on 19/03/2016. This decision of the Assessing Officer was influenced by the judgment

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

house property and income from other sources. Thereafter the return was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for verifying the cash deposits

SMT.MITHRA PAUL,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-1, THODUPUZHA

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

ITA 421/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 44ASection 69B

property, I confirm the above facts on behalf of my deceased mother Smt. Thankamma Paulose also. Thanking you. Yours faithfully sd/- Chithra Shirilson 6.3 Further, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order dated 11/11/2016 by observing as follows: “2. The case was selected for scrutiny to verify the aspect of cash deposits in savings bank account. Details have been called

SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR P.D.,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 525/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.M.S.Rajagopal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

House Vs. Ward – 5 Nagampadom Kottayam. Kottayam – 686 001. PAN : AFPPD7247E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.M.S.Rajagopal, Advocate Respondent by : Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR Date of Pronouncement : 13.06.2019 Date of Hearing : 13.06.2019 O R D E R This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)’s order dated 31.07.2018. The relevant assessment year

MUKALEL PHILIP JOSE,KANNUR vs. ITO, WARD-4, KANNUR

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

ITA 876/COCH/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mukalel Philip Jose .......... Appellant Mukalel House, Pushpagiri, Taliparamba Kannur 670141 [Pan: Acnpj4619F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Kannur .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Thane [Cit(A)] Dated 20.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Salary’. The Return Of Income For Ay 2011-12 Was Filed On 10.08.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 2,07,790/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Kannur (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 23.01.2014 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At Total Income Of Rs.

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

House, Pushpagiri, Taliparamba Kannur 670141 [PAN: ACNPJ4619F] vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Kannur .......... Respondent Assessee by: ------- None ------- Revenue by: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thane

MOLLEY JAYAPRAKASH,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 432/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Suresh Kumar C, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 115BSection 143(3)

House No.1 v. Ward 1(2) Kiran Garden, Kirali Nagar Trivandrum. K.D.Road, Muttada PO Trivandrum – 695 025. PAN : BBVPJ0580P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Suresh Kumar C, CA Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR Date of Date of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Pronouncement : 08.04.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National

BABU CHANDRATHIL GEORGE,PALARIVATTOM vs. ITO, NON-CORP WARD-1 (1), COCHIN

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

ITA 300/COCH/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69B

House v. Non-Corp.Ward -1(1) Civil Line Road Cochin. Palarivattom Ernakulam – 682 025. PAN :AGZPG7680D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : --- None --- Respondent by :Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Date of Hearing :24.03.2025 Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 O R D E R Per Sandeep Singh Karhail, JM : 1. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 12/02/2024, passed under section

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

deposits. Hence the financial transactions carried out by Smt. Mercy Kurian and Sri Sunny Kutty Thomas cannot be clubbed in the cash flow statements of the appellant. Hence the appellant's grounds are rejected and the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account cash deficits found after such exclusion of financial transactions carried out by Smt. Mercy Kurian

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

deposits. Hence the financial transactions carried out by Smt. Mercy Kurian and Sri Sunny Kutty Thomas cannot be clubbed in the cash flow statements of the appellant. Hence the appellant's grounds are rejected and the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account cash deficits found after such exclusion of financial transactions carried out by Smt. Mercy Kurian

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

deposits. Hence the financial transactions carried out by Smt. Mercy Kurian and Sri Sunny Kutty Thomas cannot be clubbed in the cash flow statements of the appellant. Hence the appellant's grounds are rejected and the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account cash deficits found after such exclusion of financial transactions carried out by Smt. Mercy Kurian

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

deposits. Hence the financial transactions carried out by Smt. Mercy Kurian and Sri Sunny Kutty Thomas cannot be clubbed in the cash flow statements of the appellant. Hence the appellant's grounds are rejected and the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account cash deficits found after such exclusion of financial transactions carried out by Smt. Mercy Kurian

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

deposits. Hence the financial transactions carried out by Smt. Mercy Kurian and Sri Sunny Kutty Thomas cannot be clubbed in the cash flow statements of the appellant. Hence the appellant's grounds are rejected and the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account cash deficits found after such exclusion of financial transactions carried out by Smt. Mercy Kurian

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

deposits. Hence the financial transactions carried out by Smt. Mercy Kurian and Sri Sunny Kutty Thomas cannot be clubbed in the cash flow statements of the appellant. Hence the appellant's grounds are rejected and the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account cash deficits found after such exclusion of financial transactions carried out by Smt. Mercy Kurian

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

deposits. Hence the financial transactions carried out by Smt. Mercy Kurian and Sri Sunny Kutty Thomas cannot be clubbed in the cash flow statements of the appellant. Hence the appellant's grounds are rejected and the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account cash deficits found after such exclusion of financial transactions carried out by Smt. Mercy Kurian