ANTONY MICHEAL JOSEPH,NAGERCOIL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , NAGERCOIL

ITA 3539/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 April 2026AY 2020-217 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee sold old and unproductive rubber trees from their agricultural land for Rs. 27,00,000/-. The assessee treated this receipt as agricultural income, but the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) considered it as business income or capital gains.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the sale of old rubber trees, which were part of a cultivated plantation and removed in the course of replantation, constitutes agricultural income. This income is exempt from tax.

What were the issues?

Whether the sale proceeds of old rubber trees from a plantation are to be treated as agricultural income or taxable business/capital income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(1A),Section 10(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: MS. PADMAVATHY S & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Hearing: 25.03.2026

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

This appeal filed by the appellant is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 15.10.2025 for the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The assessee has made the following grounds of appeal as under:

1.

The impugned order is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case.

ITA 3539/Chny/2025 (AY 2020-21) Antony Mich

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 2(1A)

All 117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(1A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →