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.

138 results for “house property”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi929Mumbai878Jaipur336Chennai335Hyderabad274Bangalore264Chandigarh161Ahmedabad146Pune142Indore140Cochin138Kolkata100Amritsar98Visakhapatnam96Rajkot69Surat66Nagpur64Raipur47Lucknow35Calcutta34Agra34Guwahati32Allahabad23Cuttack23Jodhpur18Patna18Karnataka10Telangana8Dehradun6Panaji4Jabalpur4Varanasi4SC4Gauhati1Punjab & Haryana1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 25094Section 6956Addition to Income39Section 143(3)28Unexplained Investment28Section 153C16Section 13215Section 153A12Section 15412Section 144

SMT.K.B.SONY,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, i) The appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 320/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 May 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 69

house and asphalted roads. This property also cannot be compared with the impugned property of the assessee. Being so, these two properties are to be taken out from comparison. The remaining four properties are to be considered to arrive at the fair market value of the property. For this purpose, we remit this issue to the file of the Assessing

SMT.JAMMELA S,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 292/COCH/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

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

Showing 1–20 of 138 · Page 1 of 7

12
Cash Deposit11
Disallowance8
Section 142(1)Section 69

house. According to the Ld AR, having the possession of the said Sale Deed of the property cannot lead to the conclusion that the Assessee had made any investment in said property. 8. However, we find that, before CIT(A) the Assessee took plea, the said property were purchased by the Assessee out of her drawings from business made during

SMT.JAMMELA,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 291/COCH/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

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

Section 142(1)Section 69

house. According to the Ld AR, having the possession of the said Sale Deed of the property cannot lead to the conclusion that the Assessee had made any investment in said property. 8. However, we find that, before CIT(A) the Assessee took plea, the said property were purchased by the Assessee out of her drawings from business made during

SMT.JAMMELA S,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 293/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 142(1)Section 69

house. According to the Ld AR, having the possession of the said Sale Deed of the property cannot lead to the conclusion that the Assessee had made any investment in said property. 8. However, we find that, before CIT(A) the Assessee took plea, the said property were purchased by the Assessee out of her drawings from business made during

SRI.THEJAL VASUDEVAN,TRICHUR vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

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

ITA 121/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Smt.Preetha S.NairFor Respondent: Smt.Swapna Nanu Ambat
Section 143(3)

housing loan, where bank makes the payment directly to the seller, the same is based on the consideration as per agreement and the deed. In such case, any refund out of the sanctioned loan amount to the buyer, is a non existent probability. The assessing officer has also mentioned that the contentions raised by the assessee were not supported with

JAGADISH KUMAR P.V (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE REMA PADMAJA BAI),TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1) , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 376/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmijagadish Kumar P.V. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2(1) (L/H Of Rema Padmaja Bai) Thiruvananthapuram Sree, T.C. 50/899(1), Kalady Vs. Hsra A-56, Karamana P.O. Thiruvananthapuram [Pan:Aempp5283J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raja Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 69

unexplained, out of sums invested on purchase of a residential property during the relevant year. The same stands explained, besides by way personal savings at rs. 43.76 lacs, as loan/gift/s from family membes (at an aggregate of Rs. 110 lacs), to enable her to fund the investment in her residential house

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE ACIT(CEN,CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 595/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

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

housing loan to HDFC bank could not be explained by the assessee before the lower authorities Therefore, the repayment of loan to HDFC bank has to be taken as income of the assessee. 28. The assessee has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,91,600 from the bank. Since the amount was withdrawn from bank out of the deposit made

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 46/COCH/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

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

housing loan to HDFC bank could not be explained by the assessee before the lower authorities Therefore, the repayment of loan to HDFC bank has to be taken as income of the assessee. 28. The assessee has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,91,600 from the bank. Since the amount was withdrawn from bank out of the deposit made

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 47/COCH/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2004-05

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

housing loan to HDFC bank could not be explained by the assessee before the lower authorities Therefore, the repayment of loan to HDFC bank has to be taken as income of the assessee. 28. The assessee has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,91,600 from the bank. Since the amount was withdrawn from bank out of the deposit made

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 51/COCH/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

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

housing loan to HDFC bank could not be explained by the assessee before the lower authorities Therefore, the repayment of loan to HDFC bank has to be taken as income of the assessee. 28. The assessee has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,91,600 from the bank. Since the amount was withdrawn from bank out of the deposit made

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 48/COCH/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

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

housing loan to HDFC bank could not be explained by the assessee before the lower authorities Therefore, the repayment of loan to HDFC bank has to be taken as income of the assessee. 28. The assessee has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,91,600 from the bank. Since the amount was withdrawn from bank out of the deposit made

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 49/COCH/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

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

housing loan to HDFC bank could not be explained by the assessee before the lower authorities Therefore, the repayment of loan to HDFC bank has to be taken as income of the assessee. 28. The assessee has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,91,600 from the bank. Since the amount was withdrawn from bank out of the deposit made

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE ACIT(CEN,CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 596/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

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

housing loan to HDFC bank could not be explained by the assessee before the lower authorities Therefore, the repayment of loan to HDFC bank has to be taken as income of the assessee. 28. The assessee has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,91,600 from the bank. Since the amount was withdrawn from bank out of the deposit made

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 50/COCH/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

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

housing loan to HDFC bank could not be explained by the assessee before the lower authorities Therefore, the repayment of loan to HDFC bank has to be taken as income of the assessee. 28. The assessee has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,91,600 from the bank. Since the amount was withdrawn from bank out of the deposit made

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 594/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

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

housing loan to HDFC bank could not be explained by the assessee before the lower authorities Therefore, the repayment of loan to HDFC bank has to be taken as income of the assessee. 28. The assessee has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,91,600 from the bank. Since the amount was withdrawn from bank out of the deposit made

BHIMA JEWELLERS,SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD vs. THE PR CIT, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 208/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.208/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Bhima Jewellers, Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income- 6/785 Ai, Tax, Kozhikode. Mysore Road, Chungum Junction, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad-673 592. [Pan: Aakfb 9817C] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Revenue By Shri Dhanaraj A. Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Date Of Hearing 05/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 20/08/2018

Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investments

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 taxed the same under the provisions of section 115-BBE. Further, the AO held that the loss under the head “House Property

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

V S ABDUL SALAM,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

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

ITA 611/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri Alan Dev, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 250Section 69

House Vachakal Edavanakkad ITO Ernakulam 682 502 Vs. Non-Corporate Ward-2(4) & TPS Kerala Kochi PAN NO : AHQPA7919P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Alan Dev, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 04.07.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against