“agricultural income”

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

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, 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, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

For Appellant: \nSh. Ramkishan Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: \nSh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69

nproperty could not be explained by the assessee and therefore the same was eligible\nto be added u/s 69 of the Act.\n3. Further agricultural income of Rs.11,00,000/- was also added to the total income of\nthe assessee on the ground that the assessee has failed to file ... evidence in support\nof the agricultural income.\n4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the\nLd. CIT(A), who vide the impugned order partly allowed the appeal of\nthe assessee and deleted the addition of Rs.11,00,000/- being the\nagricultural income

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, 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

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

nmaintenance of his lorries by making payments to various automobile stores. The\nassessee further stated that sale of 2 of his trailors and agricultural income also\nformed source for cash deposited into bank account.\n4.\nThese evidences were forwarded by the Id.CIT(A) to the AO for furnishing\na 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

ASHWINKUMAR SHANKARLAL PATEL (HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2558/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Maloo, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 145(3)Section 69A

That, the Ld. CIT(A) has falled to consider that in the show cause notice issued by the Ld. AO, agricultural income of Rs. 5,49,456/- was accepted and explanation was sought only for Rs. 6,10,544/-, whereas the addition of the entire amount ... assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny for large value of cash deposit during demonetization period and large agricultural income shown in ITR. The Assessing Officer issued statutory notices for which the assessee filed details of agricultural income along with sale bills agricultural produce, copy of 7/12 extracts, bank

AKHILESH MISHRA,NANAKMATTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KHATIMA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 31/DDN/2026[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Akhilesh Mishra Vs Ito Sitarganj Road, Near Balaji Mandi Samiti Mandir, Nanakmatta Campus, Khatima, Sahib, Sitarganj, Udham Singh Uttarakhand -262311 Nagar, Pan-Awkpm6776B Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Amit Kumar Mishra, Ca Respondent By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 28.11.2019 Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 148 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Teacher & Having Source Of Income From Private Teaching/Tuition. The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Total Income At Inr 3,60,140/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Order Was Passed U/S 148 R.W.S.144 Of The Act Dated 28.11.2019 By Making Addition Of Inr 29,15,000/- Towards The Cash Deposit As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee.

Section 144Section 148Section 250

record. It is an admitted fact that assessee is a well-qualified teacher of Hindi and Sanskrit subjects and besides this is having agricultural income from agricultural land which was regularly declared in the return of income filed for several years. Assessee also filed copies of capital account for various

ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. TRISHLA STEEL PVT LTD, DEHRADUN

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

ITA 188/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

nproceeded to make the addition under the head \"capital gain\" to the extent of\nRs.2,13,16,178/-. Further, the assessee has claimed agricultural income earned\nduring the year. The Ld. AO observed that the assessee has not claimed any\nexpenditure for earning the agricultural income, it clearly shows that ... sale of agricultural land under the\nhead Long Term Capital gain. Hence this ground of appeal is allowed.\"\n\n7. With regard to agricultural income, ld. CIT(A) deleted the same observing as\nunder:\n\n“8.3 I have examined the reply dated 27.12.2019 of the appellant which

NAVDEEP SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE - 13, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 401/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Hon’Ble & Shri Naveen Chandra, Hon’Ble

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 40Section 68

father along with the details of land held by him and argued that his father is agriculturist and the said amount is accumulation of agricultural income. The AO, however, rejected the explanation and therefore, he made the addition as unexplained credit ... find from the assessment order that the assessee’s father had 18 acres of land from where the assessee claimed to have procured agricultural income. We further find that the assessee has also furnished the bank statement of his father. The AO has dismissed the explanation on the ground that

KUNWAR PRANAV SINGH CHAMPION,ROORKEE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ROORKEE

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 41/DDN/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

account of unexplained cash credit which was sustained for the reason that assessee has failed to file the details with respect to the agricultural income declared by him. Even before AO, no such details were filed by the assessee. Thus, considering these facts and in the interest of justice ... matter is restored to the file of AO with the direction to examine the agricultural income declared by the assessee. The assessee is directed to file all the necessary evidences in support of the agricultural income declared. With these directions, all grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.40/DDN/2026

KUNWAR PRANAV SINGH CHAMPION,ROORKEE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ROORKEE

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 40/DDN/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

MAHESH KENCHANAGUNDU,NANDYALA vs. ITO., WARD-1, NANDYAL

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1611/HYD/2025[2015-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2015-14

Section 115BSection 147Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 69

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nHyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad\nBEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Showing 1–20 of 2,868 · Page 1 of 144

...