“Section 10(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(1)218 judgments

KANAKAPURA VENKATARAMANASWAMY MADHUSUDHAN KARTHIK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO - 1, RAMAMNAGARA, KARNATAKA.

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

ITA 2028/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Balram R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

MAMATHA MAHESH SHETTY,CHIKKAMAGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMAGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 2382/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 250

because it was understood to be exempt income, cannot be brushed aside lightly. Agricultural income is exempt . Page 9 of 12 under section 10(1) of the Act. Therefore, mere non-disclosure of agricultural income in the return does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the same

BIPINKUMAR MANILAL THAKOR,GANDHINAGAR, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR, UDYOG BHAVAN, GANDHINAGAR

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

ITA 1908/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2013-14

For Appellant: Hardav Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. D.R

Section 10(1)Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 276CSection 69A

Assessing Officer failed to consider that the cash deposits in question were proceeds from the appellant's agricultural activities, which are exempt under Section 10(1) of I.T.A No. 1908/Ahd/2025 Bipinkumar Manilal Thakor, A.Y. 2013-14 the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the addition made under Section 69A is unjustified

AREHALLI RUDRAPPA VISHWANATHA,AREHALLY,TEMPLE,BELUR vs. INCOME- TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, HASSAN

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

ITA 2654/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Srikrishna Kantila, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT-DR

Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 44ASection 80C

appreciating that part of the cash deposits represented agricultural income from the appellant's 4 acres of agricultural land, which is exempt under section 10(1) of the Act. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income tax has erred in not considering the documents and evidences duly submitted during the course

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CNETRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DILIP KUMAR GHOSH, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and CO of the Assessee are\ndismissed

ITA 1606/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Section 115BSection 153ASection 69A

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA\nBEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM\nAND\nSHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

MAHENDRA KUMAR JAGTAJI,SALEM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM, SALEM

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

ITA 1861/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shris.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं. Ita No. 1861/Chny/2025 & Sa 69/Chny/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Jagtaji, V. Dcit, Central Circle, 6/21, Devanayagam Pillai, Salem-636007 St. Shevapet, Salem-636002 [Pan: Apopm 3624 H] (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Jaydip Desai, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271ASection 69A

आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, ’बी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मनुकुमारिग"र, "ाियक सद

RUSHINA VIKRAM DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs. WARD 3(3)(2), INCOME TAX OFFICER, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2300/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)Section 250Section 69Section 69B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad

JITHENDER REDDY POLU,NALGONDA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SURYAPET

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1493/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1493/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jithender Reddy Polu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nalgonda. Ward-1, Pan:Ahlpp6612R Suryapet. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Nagaraju, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 04/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 08/01/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 05/12/2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nagaraju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. AR

Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

vide his reply filed on 30/05/2019 submitted that he is a Kisan (farmer) deriving income only from agricultural operations which were exempt under section 10(1) of the Act. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee during the subject year had made substantial

PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD.,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7655/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Sh. Aditya VohraFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member & Sh. Sudhir

SUYOJIT GARDEN,NASHIK vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2206/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2206/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vs Ito, Ward - Suyojit Garden, F-1/2, Suyojit Height, 2(1), Nashik Opp. Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Sharanpur Road, Nashik-422002 Maharashtra Pan-Abdfs6680A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vishwajit Shinde

Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80I

income from producing & sale of lawns as agricultural income exempt under tise provisions of law. Findings and decision of the Appellate Authority: 6.3 Section 10(1) exempts income which is classified as Section 2(1A) of the Act. As per established law and judicial interpretation, agricultural income must involve

AMAR NATH SINGH,ARA vs. ITO, NFAC, DELHI

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

ITA 460/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: The Itat. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Given Explanation Which Is As Under:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH”, PATNA (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CNETRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DILIP KUMAR GHOSH, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1253/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dilip Kumar Ghosh, Dcit, Circle 4(3), Kolkata P-162, Cit Road, Scheme-Viim, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata- Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054, Vs. 700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adrpg5357Q Co No. 74/Kol/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 1253/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2017-18) Dilip Kumar Ghosh, Dcit, Circle 4(3), Kolkata P-162, Cit Road, Scheme-Viim, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata- Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054, Vs. 700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Adrpg5357Q Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 153ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

ZEBA URFI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-7(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Ms. Zeba Urfi, Income Tax Officer, 16Tf, Community Centre, Ward-7(4), C.R. Building, New Delhi Vs New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaipu6601K Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Aayush Garg, Ca Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

Section 10(1)Section 143(3)

assessee claimed that she has been earning agricultural income for the past several years and has been consistently claiming exemption under section 10(1) of the Act. During the assessment year under consideration, the assessee earned net agricultural income of ₹28,50,000/- (i.e., gross agricultural receipts of ₹44,10

PREM LATA VERMA ,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), ALIGARH, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 441/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 10(1)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

SWARAN KAUR,MOHALI SAS NAGAR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, ROPAR

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

ITA 779/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms. Purminder Kaur, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual Mode)

Section 10(1)Section 144Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 44A

total cash deposits, the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- represents agricultural income earned by the appellant through cultivation activities. As per section 10(1) of the income tax act, agricultural income is exempt. That the remaining sum of Rs.3,00,000/- is attributable to income earned from dairy farming

HARNEK SINGH,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAHJAHANPUR

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

ITA 492/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Harnek Singh V. The Income Tax Officer Jaswant Nagar Shahjahanpur Narotha Hansram Shahjahanpur Tan/Pan:Hdgps6958R (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Dharmendra Kumar, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.03.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Totaling To Rs.10,56,500/- In His Following Bank Accounts During The Demonetization Period (9.11.2016 To 30.12.2016):

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 10(1)Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Harnek

M/S SHARPLINE NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 23(1), NEW DELHI , C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5140/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Sharpline Network Pvt. Vs Ito- 23(1) Ltd. C.R. Building 38, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi- 02 Jhandewalan, New Delhi- 55 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcs0526B

For Appellant: Shri Tarn Chanana, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, SR. DR

Section 10(1)Section 115BSection 144Section 234BSection 250Section 68

ITA No. 5140/DEL/2025 M/s Sharpline Network Pvt Ltd VS. ITO Ward 23(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI

BELATHUR SRINIVASAIYENGAR RANGAIYENGAR ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MYSORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Lokanath S., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 44A

which do not form part Belathur Srinivasaiyengar Rangaiyengar, Mysore Page 10 of 11 of total income”. Thus, the item of income specified in section 10(1) of the Act or Chapter-III of the Act would not be part of the total income. There cannot be a charge

APMC TARIKERE,TARIKERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHICKMAGALUR

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

ITA 1442/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri C.R. Vasanth Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 10Section 10(1)Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(7)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

ITA No.1442/Bang/2025 APMC Tarikere, Tarikere IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT

CORTEVA AGRISCIENCE SEEDS PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS PHI SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED),TELANGANA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1422/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmacorteva Agriscience Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy Seeds Pvt. Ld. (Formerly Assistant Commissioner Of Known As Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd.) Income Tax, Circle 4(2) V- Ascendas, Atria Block, Cr Building 12Th Floor, Plot 17, New Delhi Software Units Layout, Madhapur, Hyderabad Telangana India – 500081 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccp3920F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT, DR

Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

most of the years as tax exempt agricultural income in terms of section 2(1A) read with section 10 (1) of the Act. The assessee's claim for the exemption under section 10(1) of the Act on its agricultural income had been consistently accepted in all assessments and also

Showing 1–20 of 218 · Page 1 of 11

...