← All Phrases

“agricultural income”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(1A) / Rule 7, 7A, 7B(1), 7B(1A), 82,868 judgments

The decision most relied on for agricultural income is CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (315 ITR 1), cited in 363 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on agricultural income

CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)
315 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court
363
citing judgments

Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of land. It is taxable as 'capital gains' and not separately as 'interest income' under the head Income from Other Sources.

CIT v. Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd.
389 ITR 68 · 2016 · High Court
192
citing judgments

Income earned by a cooperative society from investing its surplus funds in short-term deposits and securities is not attributable to its core activities and therefore not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
414 ITR 67 · 2019 · High Court
190
citing judgments

The Full Bench of the Kerala High Court held that a co-operative bank or society is not entitled to a deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act if it provides loans to non-members. This decision was subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court.

Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO
298 ITR 349 · 2008 · High Court
187
citing judgments

Cash receipts from customers against genuine delivery of goods or services cannot be added as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The case also provides guidance on non-disallowance under Section 40A(3) for business payments made in specific contexts like agricultural markets.

Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Assessing Officer
154 Taxmann.com 305 · 2023 · Supreme Court
136
citing judgments

Section 80P(4) is not applicable to a cooperative bank unless it is classified as a 'bank' under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. For cooperative banks not meeting this definition, the deduction for interest earned from investments in cooperative societies is available under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy
32 ITR 466 · 1957 · Supreme Court
132
citing judgments

Income is considered agricultural income, exempt under Section 10(1), only if the land undergoes a measure of cultivation involving basic primary operations prior to germination and subsequent post-germination activities requiring human skill and labour.

Sabarkhanta Zilla Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. ClT
203 ITR 1027 · 1993 · Supreme Court
98
citing judgments

Co-operative societies or banks engaged in both agricultural and non-agricultural activities are entitled to deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, limited only to the profits derived from agricultural activities, not 100% of their gross profits.

CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd.
301 ITR 384 · 2008 · High Court
98
citing judgments

An addition cannot be made under Section 68 for cash credits if it is established that the credits do not pertain to the impugned assessment year but relate to earlier assessment years.

Judgments citing agricultural income

Jigar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 604/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Oct 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

that assessee e-filed his return of income on 31.07.2018 for the AY 2018-19 declaring total income at Rs.5,48,790/- and agriculture income of Rs.75,54,376/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS under selection criteria “Agricultural Income”. In response to several statutory notices issued ... examination of the entire case, came to the conclusion that for the year under consideration which witnessed widespread calamity i.e. Gujarat 2017 floods, the agricultural income cannot be more and the reply given by the assessee was nothing but a concocted story. The AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s

Ranar Agrochem Limited, Parawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

ITA 288/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Aug 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.288/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Ranar Agrochem Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaccp0372M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M. Madhusudan, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Jenardhanan V, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15/05/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 30/12/2016 For A.Y.

For Appellant: Shri M. Madhusudan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Jenardhanan V, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 68

find that in majority of the cases the respective creditor had though claimed that the amount advanced by them was sourced out of their agricultural income, but strangely nothing is borne on record which would substantiate the veracity of their claim regarding the said source of income. Our aforesaid view

Shyam Sunder, Gururgam vs. ITO ( Circle 4(1), Gurgram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4779/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)Section 54BSection 54F

upon the assessee. In response thereto, the assessee filed his return of income on 01/09/2018 declaring total income of Rs.22,37,610/- along with agricultural income of Rs.75,000/-. Thereafter, notice under section 143(2) was issued on 25/09/2018 and the reasons recorded for reopening were supplied to the assessee

Rajeswaramma Duvvuru, Nellore vs. ITO., Ward-1, Gudur

ITA 227/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

reopen the assessment. The assessee filed the ITR for AY 2017-18 on 19.04.2021, declaring an income of Rs. 3,66,360 and agricultural income of Rs. 1.25.000. Notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) along with a questionnaire were issued to the assessee to explain the source ... provide satisfactory explanations or adequate documentary evidence. The assessee failed to furnish evidence regarding the source of the loan, agricultural income, and details of transactions. The cash loan of Rs. 16,50,000 was treated by AO as unexplained money under section 69A and added to the total income

Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 9205/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2Section 92C

Rs.40,03,75,727/- after claiming exemption under section 2(1A) r.w.s. 10(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of agricultural income amounting to Rs.124,59,41,832/-. According to the assessee- company, the main activity of the company is to procure various varieties of seeds from ... order appearing on page no.54 to 59 of the assessment order and assessed the income amounting to Rs.1,24,59,41,832/- claimed as agricultural income and exempt u/s 10(1) of the Act as income from business activities. The important findings of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order

Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi

ITA 7375/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2Section 92C

income of Rs.40,03,75,727/- after claiming exemption under section 2(1A) r.w.s.10(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of agricultural income amounting to Rs.124,59,41,832/-. According to the assessee- company, the main activity of the company is to procure various varieties of seeds ... order appearing on page no.54 to 59 of the assessment order and assessed the income amounting to Rs.1,24,59,41,832/- claimed as agricultural income and exempt u/s 10(1) of the Act as income from business activities. The important findings of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order

Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1575/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2Section 92C

income of Rs.40,03,75,727/- after claiming exemption under section 2(1A) r.w.s.10(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of agricultural income amounting to Rs.124,59,41,832/-. According to the assessee- company, the main activity of the company is to procure various varieties of seeds ... order appearing on page no.54 to 59 of the assessment order and assessed the income amounting to Rs.1,24,59,41,832/- claimed as agricultural income and exempt u/s 10(1) of the Act as income from business activities. The important findings of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order

Abhishekbhai Ashokbhai Patel, Kadi vs. The ITO, Ward 1, Mehsana

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

ITA 1803/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Deepak, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Ananya Kulshresth, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

assessee. The assessee has explained that the deposits were made out of (i) cash withdrawals from the same bank account, (ii) family savings including agricultural income, and (iii) gifts received at the time of marriage in the preceding year. 8. On perusal of the bank statement and cash flow placed ... assessee to this extent and the same is accepted. 10. However, with regard to the balance amount claimed to be sourced from agricultural income and family savings, we find that the assessee has Shri Abhishekbhai Ashokbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year –2010-11 - 5– failed to furnish any cogent documentary

ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi vs. Dheeraj Chaudhary, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6380/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumaracit Vs. Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary Central Circle-8 Flat No.1A Empire Estate, New Delhi Sultanpur, M.G. Road, New Delhi 110030 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaspk 9267 B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Monalisha Maity, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 274

profit and gain from business at Rs.5,14,957/- from turnover of Rs. 23,63,712/-, income from other sources at Rs. 3951/- and agricultural income of Rs. 1,83,000/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on Karan Luthra group of assessees ... erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,83,000/- made by Ld. AO on account of non- submission of requisite evidences regarding claim of agricultural income. 7. Ld. Authorized Representative for respondent-assessee submitted that, evidences of ownership of land, use of land for agricultural purposes were submitted. 8. From

Yash Travels and Tours Private Limited, Nagpur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 2(2) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

ITA 481/NAG/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Mar 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Yash Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward–2(2), Nagpur F–5, Shrdha House, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kingsway, Nagpur–4440001. Nagpur–440001. [Pan: Aaacy3931D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(37)Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 96

section 10(37) of Income Tax Act (Act). The assessee by mistake in the return of income claimed the entire amount as exempt as agriculture income. However, on realising mistake such facts were brought in the notice of assessing officer (AO). TDS on interest is duly reflected in Form- 26AS ... revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The Ld. CIT-DR for revenue submits that assessee in the return of income claimed agriculture income. The assessing officer allowed the interest of Rs. 13.14 Crore on which TDS was made. And remaining amount was treated as income from other sources

Income Tax Officer (TDS-3), Ahmedabad vs. Tarun Santramdas Varma, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2549/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kmble

For Appellant: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 201Section 250Section 46A

explicitly inapplicable to agricultural land. The AO erred in ignoring this statutory exclusion. "Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act defines agricultural income to include income from agricultural land in India but outside municipal limits with a ITO Vs. Tarun Santramdas Varma Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 6– population exceeding

Pradeep Sharda, Dehradun vs. ACIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 223/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun25 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Pradeep Sharda Vs Acit 7, Inder Road, Dehradun Circle-1(2)(1) Uttarakhand -248001 Dehradun Pan-Adwps5692K Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 25.03.2026 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Nashik [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Dehradun/10344/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 01.11.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Practicing Doctor & E-Filed His Return Of Income, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 2,16,70,906/- On 30.10.2017. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making Additions Of Inr 15,84,870/- Comprising Of The Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act Of Inr 5,05,195/- & Treating The Agricultural Income Of Inr 6,25,000/- As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act & Of Inr 4,54,675/- As The Addition U/S 68 Of The Act On Account Of Cash Credit.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 68Section 69A

comprising of the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act of INR 5,05,195/- and treating the agricultural income of INR 6,25,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and of INR 4,54,675/- as the addition u/s 68 of the Act on account ... made u/s 68 of the Act and confirmed the addition of INR 6,25,000/- made on account of agricultural income treated as undisclosed income and disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act of INR 5,05,195/-. 4. Before us, in respect of Ground of appeal No.2

Nand Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 357/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Ramkishan Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

said property could not be explained by the assessee and therefore the same was eligible to be added u/s 69 of the Act. Further agricultural income of Rs.11,00,000/- was also added to the total income of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has failed to file ... evidence in support of the agricultural income. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide the impugned order partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition of Rs.11,00,000/- being the Page [3 ITA No.357/JPR/2025

Parminder Singh Manes, Zira vs. Income Tax Officer, Ferozepur

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

ITA 925/ASR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C.A. (Virtual)
Section 147Section 250

order), to the registered email address of the assessee. 8. In absence of any documentary evidence of agricultural land holdings, supporting the claim of agricultural income, and in absence of any evidence to substantiate the cash flow statement furnished before the appellate authority, the appeal has been dismissed ... tribunal praying for an opportunity to present his case before the Ld. first appellate authority with documentary evidences in order to explain his agricultural income and has submitted that the email id as per form 35 was different and notice has never been issued to the same and as such

Harbhol Singh, Sunam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Sunam

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 788/CHANDI/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Krinwant Sahay, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.788/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Harbhol Singh Ito H. No. 863, Village – Sheron, Aayakar Bhawan, Income Tax बनाम/ Vs. Suman Road, Sunam Officer, Ward Sunam, Sangrur District : Sangrur Punjab - 148028 Punjab - 148028 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Cssps-9948-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Deepinder Singh (Advocate) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 19-03-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Krinwant Sahay () This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/ Nfac, Delhi Dt. 16/05/2025 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. In The Present Appeal Assessee Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Sh. Deepinder Singh (Advocate)For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) Ld. Sr. DR
Section 148

that the assessee is an individual who filed a return of income on 14.04.2019 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,120/- and agricultural income of Rs. 4,86,143/-. The case was reopened by issuing notice under section 148. The case was reopened based on information that the assessee

Sasireka Boopathi, Thanjavur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thanjavur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands Partly

ITA 4113/CHNY/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4113/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sasireka Boopathi, Vs Income Tax Officer, 1/263, Vellalar Street, Thanjavur. Saliyamangalam, Papanasam, Thanjavur – 613504 Pan: Gpfpb2689J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Gokularaman – Ca Revenue By Ms. V Aswathy – Jcit Date Of Hearing 18/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2019-20 Dated 19.09.2025. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250

Notification. 2. The Appellant Smt. Sasireka Boopathi is an Agriculturist. She is having Agricultural Land in Kumbakonam. From this Agricultural Land, she derived Net Agricultural Income of Rs.1,60,000 between the period from 2nd February 2018 to 18th July 2018. Hence, the Source is explainable ... Rs.11,00,000. Hence, the Source is explainable for the gift received from Parents Rs.2,00,000 and another Rs.2,50,000 from agricultural income. 4. Hence, the Source is explainable for addition made for Rs.6,00,000 Gift from Parents - Rs.2,00,000 ITA No.4113/CHNY/2025 [A] Net Agricultural Income

Pongiyannan Thangavel, Tiruchengode vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Erode

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2929/CHNY/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

maintenance of his lorries by making payments to various automobile stores. The assessee further stated that sale of 2 of his trailors and agricultural income also formed source for cash deposited into bank account. 4. These evidences were forwarded by the Id.CIT(A) to the AO for furnishing a remand

Ekki Krishnamurthy HUF, Puttur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/BANG/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 250

appeal which are interconnected. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowances of agricultural income and treating the same as income from other sources. Page 2 of 9 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee ... filed for the year under consideration, the assessee declared total taxable income of Rs. 2,63,450/-only. Subsequently, the return was revised declaring agricultural income for Rs. 41,51,600/- only which was claimed as exempted under the Act. The return was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS

Shrishil Dhulappa Honavad, Bijapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

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

ITA 2347/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

dated 22.08.2025. 2. The effective issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) the erred in confirming the disallowances of agricultural income of Rs. 7,00,761/- and treating the same as unexplained under section 69A of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that ... individual, filed return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs. Page 2 of 9 1,15,943/- and agricultural income of Rs. 29,24,800/- only. The AO observed that the assessee had declared agricultural income from cultivation of sugarcane and other crops on agricultural

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
Section 10(1)Section 250Section 69A

dated 04.09.2025. 2. The effective issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowances of agricultural income of Rs. 29,86,046/- by treating the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Page 2 of 11 3. The relevant facts ... also declared exempted income of Rs. 29,86,046/- derived from agricultural activities. In the earlier years, the assessee had not reported any agricultural income. Therefore, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify the genuineness of the agricultural income and the land holdings