NITESH NATH SHAH DEO,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, RANCHI, RANCHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The inspector's report confirmed that 25 acres of land were being used for agricultural operations, with crops like paddy, wheat, pulses, mustard, and green vegetables being grown. No commercial or residential activities were found on the land.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed agriculture income of Rs. 13,20,000/-, which was disallowed by the AO on the grounds that no agricultural operations were proved. The assessee claimed ownership of 64 acres of ancestral land and stated that agricultural operations were indeed being conducted.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of agriculture income claimed by the assessee is justified when the land is used for agricultural operations.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM
O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld.Addl/JCIT(A), Bengaluru, dated 28.03.2025 for the assessment year 2015-2016.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee owns 64 acres of land and the same is ancestral land. The assessee had claimed agriculture income of Rs.13,20,000/- which was disallowed by the AO on the ground that there was no proof of agriculture operations being done. The ld. AR submitted that agriculture operations are being done. Consequently, a remand report had been called for from the AO. After physical verification the AO has submitted his remand report which reads as follows :-
It was the submission of the ld. AR that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted.
In reply the Ld. Sr DR vehemently supported the order of AO and CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions. The inspector of the AO’s office has visited the site and has found 25 acres of land on which agriculture operations have been done. As it is noticed that agriculture operations having been done and confirmed by the inspector of the revenue, the addition made by the AO and as confirmed by the CIT(A) stands deleted.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 06/01/2026.
More judgments on Section 65
- Ummesalma Huzefa Ghadiali, Mumbai vs DCIT-Central Circle 4(2), MumbaiITA 8187/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed26 Feb 2026AY 2019-20
- Ummesalma Huzefa Ghadiali, Mumbai vs DCIT-Central Circle 4(2), MumbaiITA 8186/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
- Bhagwanti Lalitkumar Jain, Mumbai vs ACIT, Central Circle 4(2), MumbaiITA 8656/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
- Bhagwanti Lalitkumar Jain, Mumbai vs ACIT, Central Circle 4(2), MumbaiITA 8655/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed25 Feb 2026AY 2019-20
- Jayantilal Jesaram Purohit, Mumbai vs DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), MumbaiITA 7459/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
