“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

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

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

DCIT, Central Circle, Noida vs. Pgp Charitable Trust, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 470/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 12ASection 132Section 153C

ACUPS221o0. I am submitting copy of my PAN card for ID proof Q2 Please explain your source of income A Income from pension, Agricultural income and income from house property Q3 Please explain whether you are Director in company. Partner in any firm or you have Any association with invel

Gopal Jagannath Jadhav, Dhule vs. ITO, Ward 3, Dhule

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 241/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 143(3)Section 69A

Rs.15,00,000 made by the A.O. by taxing entire 2 ITA.No.241/PUN./2024 cash deposits made during demonetization period out of agricultural income and past savings of the assessee’s joint family on the ground that the assessee individual did not own any agricultural land in his name without ... appellant aged 89 years owned around 24 acres of agricultural land which was cultivated by the assessee and his brother and the agricultural income earned from the said land of joint family over the years was deposited in the bank account during demonetization period and therefore, the addition of Rs.15

Pallathukadavil Ibrahimkutty Abdul Kabeer, Ernakulam vs. The PCIT Kochi-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the above terms, and his SA dismissed

ITA 428/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicialmember & Sa No. 78/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pallathukadavil Ibrahimkutty Principal Cit – 1 Abdul Kabeer C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road 71, Pallathukadavil Vs. Kochi 682018 Kanjoor P.O., Ernakulam 682575 [Pan: Aaopi0584P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Padmanathan K.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54B

brief facts of the case are that the assessee returned his income for the relevant year on 31.03.2019 at Rs.7,77,378 (other than agricultural income of Rs.6.78 lacs). The return was selected for being subject to the verification procedure under the Act qua it’s following aspects: (a) investment

Balwinder Singh, Sangrur vs. ITO, Ward, Sunam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 252/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dev Ahuja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 271F

assessee. This is the only year when the appellant received notices from the Income Tax Department. The assessee's only source of income was agricultural income and very nominal interest income from the bank. There was no other income of the assessee during the year except agricultural income. During

Balwinder Singh Bajwa, Sangrur vs. ITO, Ward, Sunam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dev Ahuja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

Cochin) has held that any surplus money arising to an assessee on sale of agricultural land would always partake the character of agricultural income itself. The consideration stated in the registered sale deed was agricultural income. Likewise "the on-money" also should be treated as agricultural income. 6.4 Reliance ... held by the Tribunal that any surplus money arising to an assessee on sale of agricultural land would partake the character of agricultural income itself. For the aforesaid reasoning, I hold that the order of the CIT(A) is correct and in accordance with law and no interference is called

Shri Mahendrakumar H. Adhvaryu, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1814/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. Mahendrakumar H. Adhvaryu, Income Tax Officer, A-8, Classic Palace, Talav Gate, Ward-3(3)(3), Bodakdev, Ahmedabad-380054 Ahmedabad Pan : Aezpa 8877 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Anurag Chandra, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Cit(A)” For Short] Dated 28.08.2019, Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Pertaining To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Raised Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Giving A Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing To The Appellant Which Is In Violation Of The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Stepping Into The Shoes Of The Appellant To Confirm The Additions. 3. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Addition Of Cash In Hand Of Rs.62,76,216/- U/S 68 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Anurag Chandra, Sr DR

Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

semi-wholesale of fruits. During the impugned year, the assessee had filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,83,930/- and agricultural income of Rs.3,65,155/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under the scope of limited scrutiny in order to examine (i) “whether ... expenses incurred were filed. And he also noted that no godown/shop for storing fruits was maintained by the assessee. Similarly, with respect to the agricultural income earned by the assessee, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee was unable to establish the genuineness of the same; thus, with respect

Rajendra Namdev Nasare, Narkhed, Nagpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Nagpur

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 363/NAG/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)

made cash gift to appellant. In the present case under consideration, the appellant's parents source for cash gift is out of agricultural income of Rs.6,50,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- which cannot be appreciated. The appellant has also not produced any evidence with regard to sale of agricultural ... produce by his parents in support of the claim. Therefore, the source of cash gift from his parents out of their agricultural income is not established. Further, the claim of the appellant that the sources for cash deposit of Rs.8,SO,OOO/- out of sale proceeds of goods, agriculture income

D.Ramgopal, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Coimbatore

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 582/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.582/Chny/2022 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri D. Ramagopal Acit बनाम C/O Mr. G.V. Jhabakh (Fca) Central Circle-1 157, P.M Swamy Colony, Coimbatore. / Vs. 5Th Street, Coimbatore-641 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akgpr-3621-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jhabakh (Ca)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 18-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [Cit(A)] On 25.05.2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153A Of The Act On 30.03.2016. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Jhabakh (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271F

appeal erred in arriving the capital gain working on Coonoor property sold. 7. The assessing officer and the C.I.T. appeal also not considered the agriculture income and treating the income at nil without considering the agriculture expenses. 8. The assessing officer and the C.I.T. appeal erred in not cosndiering ... which is plenty available was also not considered. 1.2 As is evident, five issues fall for our consideration i.e., (i) Agriculture income; (ii) Addition of Loans; (iii) Computation of profit on sale of land; (iv) Computation of Capital Gains on Coonoor Property; (v) Profit on Sale of Land at Ponnaiarajapuram

Ketankumar Ravabhai Patel, Himatnagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Himantnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 69A

assessee filed his return of income for assessment year 2017-18 on 28-07-2017 declaring total income of Rs. 4,07,690/- and agricultural income of Rs. 2,08,978/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of large cash deposit during demonetization period. After issuing

Maulikaben Anantkumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1013/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble

For Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr. DR

erred in alw and on facts in upholding addition made by the Ld. AO for agriculture income of Rs.35,95,588/- as unexplained receipt. 3. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend and alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal.” 3. The assessee derives income ... from agriculture and filed original return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 31.08.2018 declaring loss of Rs.95,900/- and agricultural income of Rs.62,83,468/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return on 31.03.2019 declaring total income of Rs.95,900/- and agriculture income of Rs.70,78,468/-. The case

Usha Rani Chiluvoori, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 263/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, DR

Section 143(3)Section 69A

individual. She filed her return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 03/01/2018 declaring total income of Rs. 4,79,890/- and agricultural income of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify the cash deposits. During the course of assessment proceedings

Dilip Kumar Jain, Ramganjmandi vs. Assistant Commissioner, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 180/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hearing.” 3. Succinctly, The Fact As Culled Out From The Records Is That Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Business, Agriculture & Other

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Kota. Assessee had filed his return of income u/s 139 of the Act on 27.10.2018 at the total income of Rs.7,50,180/- and agriculture income of Rs. 1,03,020/-. Notice u/s 143(2) of Act was issued by the AO on 15.02.2019 which was duly served. Further, notice ... same is reproduced herein below. STATEMENT OF FACTS - The assessee is an individual and derives income under the head "business", " other sources" and agricultural income. Search and seizure action u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 was carried out on 15/11/2017 in the case of "Golden Group" of Suket, Ramganjmandi

Venkatanarayana Peetha, Godavarru vs. Income Tax Officer, Tenali

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

ITA 309/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.309/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Venkatanarayana Peetha Vs. Income Tax Officer House No.4-41, Godavarru Village Ward-1 Duggirala Mandalam Tenali Guntur [Pan : Byspp4577L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 143(3)Section 69A

assessee is a farmer and doing cultivation for 15 years and the source for cash deposits was from earlier savings made out of agricultural income earned from 8 acres of land taken on lease for the last 15 years and earning commission as real estate agent. The assessee ... confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee filed a paper book and contented that the sources for the cash deposits was from the agricultural income derived for the last 15 years and the commission received as real estate agent, besides agricultural income. The assessee pleaded for one more opportunity

Instrumentation Laboratory India Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 10(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2051/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Instrumentation Laboratory Vs. Dcit India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(2) 1471-1476, 14Th Floor, New Delhi Aggarwal Millennium Tower- 2, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi Pan: Aabci6557N Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 234BSection 234CSection 271

same effect are the decisions of Hon'ble Kerala High Court, which are in the case of (i) K. Joseph Jacob vs Agricultural Income Tax Officer & another (1991) 190 ITR 464 (Ker) and (ii) Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Officer vs. Kappumalai Estate, 234 ITR 187 (Ker). 14. The Jodhpur

Shri Rameshbhai N. Savaliya, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1124/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Lilaben Rameshbhai The Dy.Cit Savaliya Vs Central Circle-1(1) Legal Heir Of Rameshbhai Ahmedabad N.Savaliya 12, Paritosh Bungalows Satellite Ahmedabad – 380 015 Pan: Abjps 1312 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamblethis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18/01/2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Made By The Smt.Lilaben Rameshbhai .Savaliya Legal Heir Of Shri Rameshbhai N. Savaliya Asst.Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

facts of the case in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,06,204/- claimed as expenditure incurred relating to agricultural income. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the disallowance made ... profit and loss account.” 3. The assessee filed return of income on 28/09/2020 declaring income of Rs.68,490/-. The assessee also declared agricultural income to the tune of Rs.2,65,510/-. The same was processed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Sri. Vakalapudi Ramachandra Rao, Sindhanur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur

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

ITA 515/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

assessee shown gross receipt from agricultural activities at Rs.35 lakhs after deducting the expenditure to the tune of Rs.19.25 lakhs and the net agricultural income disclosed by assessee at Rs.15.75 lakhs. The ld. AO while framing the assessment Sri Vakalapudi Ramachandra Rao, Sindhanur Page ... also taken 34.3 acres land from different owners for lease to carry out agricultural activities. It was submitted that the assessee has earned agricultural income out of the above land to the tune of net income of Rs.15.75 lakhs and filed copies of land records and lease agreements before

Sri. Hemaraj Adiveppa Badni, Hubballi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hubli

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

ITA 437/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate

various details in respect of the cash deposits made during demonetisation period and also sought explanation in respect of substantial increase in the agricultural income that was claimed exempt during the year. The assessee sought time before the assessing officer which was granted. However, proper details could not be furnished

Pandurang Panjabrao Tiwade, Nagpur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Nagpur

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

ITA 60/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.60/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Pandurang Panjabrao The Joint Commissioner Tiwade, V Of Income Tax, Range-2, Lonara, Gumthi, S Nagpur. Nagpur – 441111. Pan: Asjpt1392H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Aksshay Duragkar – Advocate- Ar Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, For A.Y.2017-18 Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 271D Of The Act Dated 03.03.2020. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Pandurang Panjabrao Tiwade [A]

Section 250Section 27Section 271DSection 27I

dated 03.03.2020. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : Pandurang Panjabrao Tiwade [A] 1. The assessee is a farmer and is having agricultural income only therefore, the assessee had not filed return of income for the relevant A.Y. The assessee had received notice u/ s 271D of Income

Ravindra Pratap Singh Jat, Bhopal vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal

ITA 397/IND/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Apr 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2007-08 Shri Ravindra Pratap Dy. Commissioner Singh Jat, Of Income-Tax, H.No.1, Nishtpura Berasia Bhopal बनाम/ Road, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Bdwps2747C Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.04.2024

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

milk produce and agriculture. For AY 2007-08, the assessee filed original return on 20.09.2007 declaring a total income of Rs. 37,697/- and agricultural income of Rs. 3,64,821/- which was duly assessed by AO vide assessment-order dated 15.07.2009 u/s 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently

Jacintha Prasad Panicker, Mangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Mangalore

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

ITA 263/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 131(1)(d)Section 234

circumstances of the case. Jacintha Prasad Panicker, Mangalore Page 2 of 9 4. The learned Authorities below is not justified to consider the Agricultural income of Rs. as Income from other sources, under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. Further, the learned authorities below failed ... appreciate that the appellant reported the agricultural income erroneously and on estimate basis. 5. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble ITAT, the appellant denies herself liable to be charged to interest u/s 234-A, 234-B and 234-C of the Act, which under