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.

99 results for “house property”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai658Delhi599Jaipur236Chennai215Hyderabad200Bangalore161Chandigarh120Cochin99Ahmedabad79Kolkata75Pune73Indore58Amritsar57Nagpur48Lucknow45Visakhapatnam44Surat31Raipur29Rajkot28Guwahati27Agra26Cuttack18SC17Patna10Allahabad7Jodhpur6Jabalpur5Varanasi5Dehradun3Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 250118Section 153A34Section 6933Addition to Income29Section 143(3)23Section 143(2)17Cash Deposit15Section 14412Section 13212Unexplained Investment

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 99 · Page 1 of 5

12
Section 143(1)9
Unexplained Money8

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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 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

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

LAILA PARASSERY,MALAPPUAM vs. ITO, WARD-3, TIRUR

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

ITA 896/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2017-18 Laila Parassery .......... Appellant Thekkath House, Kizhisseri, Kuzhimanna Po, Malappuram-673641. Pan: Cwfpp9120H

For Appellant: Shri Padmanathan K V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

House, Kizhisseri, Kuzhimanna PO, Malappuram-673641. PAN: CWFPP9120H vs. Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-3, Tirur. Appellant by: Shri Padmanathan K V, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 03.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order

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

House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [PAN: ACGPJ4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him) Revenue by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 13.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement:09.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM These are cross

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

House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [PAN: ACGPJ4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him) Revenue by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 13.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement:09.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM These are cross

LEKHA SREEKUMAR,MAVELIKARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 545/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Lekha Sreekumar .......... Appellant Karalil House, Vallikunnam P.O. Mavelikara, Alappuza 690501 [Pan: Alepl6532F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 5, Thiruvalla

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)

House, Vallikunnam P.O. Mavelikara, Alappuza 690501 [PAN: ALEPL6532F] vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 5, Thiruvalla Appellant by: Shri R. Krishnan, CA Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre

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)

house property, i.e., land and building, into account. The test is satisfied in the instant case. The lease rentals are deployed to finance both creation of more built-up space, as per it’s mandate, and which we observe to be at, besides Cochin, Thrissur, Ambalapuzha and Cherthala, as well as through charge of depreciation, sustain that existing. Further

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)

house property, i.e., land and building, into account. The test is satisfied in the instant case. The lease rentals are deployed to finance both creation of more built-up space, as per it’s mandate, and which we observe to be at, besides Cochin, Thrissur, Ambalapuzha and Cherthala, as well as through charge of depreciation, sustain that existing. Further

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)

house property, i.e., land and building, into account. The test is satisfied in the instant case. The lease rentals are deployed to finance both creation of more built-up space, as per it’s mandate, and which we observe to be at, besides Cochin, Thrissur, Ambalapuzha and Cherthala, as well as through charge of depreciation, sustain that existing. Further