← 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

Sh. Darshan Singh, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Ward-5(5), Chandigarh

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

ITA 632/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 147

quashed. 3. The Officers below have erred in not accepting the plea of the appellant that the amount of Rs.3,92,300/- pertained to agriculture income when his evidence of ownership of land including jamabandi and other ownership documents were already submitted to the assessing officer as well as Appellate ... addition on that account could have been made. 4. The Appellate Authority has wrongly held that the appellant could not substantiate the claim of agriculture income by filing the relevant evidences in support of agriculture of income. The appellant had submitted the copies of the documents like Jamabandi to prove

Sri Sravan Kumar Neela, Nalgonda vs. ACIT Central Circle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 899/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

which he does not even claim to have any experience, with funds arising, similarly, from unspecified friends and relatives, i.e., besides accumulated savings from agricultural income, again wholly unsubstantiated. Our decision qua Sh. Chinni would therefore equally apply in this case as well. 3.7 Though the Appeal raises other Grounds

Sri Uma Maheshwara Rao Chinni, Guntur vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 895/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

which he does not even claim to have any experience, with funds arising, similarly, from unspecified friends and relatives, i.e., besides accumulated savings from agricultural income, again wholly unsubstantiated. Our decision qua Sh. Chinni would therefore equally apply in this case as well. 3.7 Though the Appeal raises other Grounds

Smt. Hiresave Vishakantegowda Sujitha, Hassan vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-2, Hassan

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

ITA 392/BANG/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Hiresave Vishakantegowda Sujatha, Vs. Ward-2, #666 Shankaramata Road, Hassan-573 201. 2Nd Cross, Kr Puram Hassan Block, Hassan-573201. Pan – Arsps 6347 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sukruth N Segu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department (DR)
Section 69A

assessee. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is deriving income under the head ‘income from house property and agricultural income’. The assessee filed return of income for the impugned assessment. year 2017-18 on 10/12/2018 declaring a total income of Rs.2,78,314/- after claiming ... agricultural income of Rs.7,00,000/-. Subsequently, the case was picked up for scrutiny under CASS to verify the source of cash deposited during demonetization period. Accordingly, the statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee submitted certain submissions before the AO but failed to submit certain documents regarding

Mr. Riyaz Ahmed, Chikamagalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalore

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

ITA 1130/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, Advocate
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

that return was filed in response to the notice u/s. 148 on 10.03.2022 after one year, declaring total income of Rs.1,97,570/- and agricultural income of Rs.1,55,200/-. The assessee admitted income from business of Rs.1,85,585/- and income from other sources of Rs.21,985/-. The purchases

Mehulkumar Arvindbhai Patel, Kadi vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 383/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 383/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 Mehulkumar Arvindbhai Patel, The P.C.I.T, 1 & 2 Swami Vevekanand Society, Vs. Ahmedabad-1, Karan Nagar Road, Kadi-382715, Gujarat, India

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

facts are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and draws income under the head salary, business, and other sources including agricultural Income. The assessee in the year under consideration has declared an income of Rs. 29,87,600/- which was accepted in the assessment framed ... vide order dated 27-02-2021. In the assessment order, the income declared by the assessee under the head exempted agricultural income amounting to Rs. 64,00780/- was also accepted by the AO. 5. However, the learned PCIT on examination of the assessment records found that the enquiry

Thangamuthu, Erode vs. AO, Delhi

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

ITA 1469/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1469/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Thangamuthu, Vs. The Assessing Officer, V.O.C. Nagar, Nathakkadaiyur, Ward I (4), Erode 638 198, Tamil Nadu. Tiruppur. [Pan:Akypt4970A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.C. Ravi Krishnan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri N.C. Ravi Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

income for the assessment year 2021-22 on 17.01.2022 declaring net 2 I.T.A. No.1469/Chny/23 taxable income of ₹.2,70,340/- (including LTCG) plus agricultural income of ₹.8,40,000/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS to verify the issue of cash deposited and purchase/sale of property. Against ... assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 13.12.2022 by assessing total income of the assessee at ₹.13,63,646/- plus agricultural income of ₹.5,76,639/- after making various additions. On appeal, after considering part details of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

Jagadish Patil, Bijapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 443/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Marlecha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 115BSection 144

also working as a physical director in Govt. aided school of BLDE Society. The main Page 3 of 4 source of income is agricultural income and salary. Agricultural lands are inherited property. The notices issued by the FAA were not seen by the assessee and the case was migrated

Narayanappa Munikrishnappa, Ramanagara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Ramanagara

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

ITA 173/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Balasubramanyam, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 250Section 69A

above, the NFAC erred in not accepting the creditworthiness of the lenders on the untenable reasoning that ownership of sine qua non to earning agricultural income. 4. Without prejudice to Ground No. 2 above, the NFAC erred in confirming the order of the Ld. AO by holding that gift received ... wife from her parents was not substantiated despite the Appellant having submitted the necessary evidences substantiating the agricultural income earned by them. 5. The appellant prays for leave to add, delete, modify and/or adduce additional ground at any time before the appeal is disposed off. 1.1 The crux of above

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

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 581/CHNY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.581/Chny/2022 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) 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. "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 : 09-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jhabakh(CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271F

erred in treating cash deposits into bank account as un-explained income. 3. 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. 4. The assessing officer and the C.I.T. appeal erred in not considering ... considered. As is evident, three issues falls for our consideration i.e., (i) Computation of capital gains; (ii) Cash deposits in bank account; (iii) Agricultural income. 1.2 The Ld. AR advanced arguments supporting the case of the assessee. The written submissions have also been filed. The Ld. CIT-DR has supported

Shri .K. Mathivathanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 43/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.43/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri K. Mathivathanan, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.91/15, East Jones Road, Vs. Income Tax, Saidapet, Corporate Circle-4(2), Chennai – 600 015. Chennai. [Pan: Aaipm-6121-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate : Shri Suresh Guduri, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2024 : 09.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A for Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

under for adjudication :- “Whether CIT(A) was justified in disallowing Rs.14,50,110/- on basis estimate being the entire expenses incurred towards earning the agriculture income reported at Rs.25,00,110/- ?” 3. We have heard the learned representatives of both the parties, perused the findings of the authorities below ... assessee is the owner of about 30 acres of dry /wet agricultural land near Thani. 5. The assessee had declared agricultural income of Rs.25,00,110/- and claimed exemption in the return of income filed. During the course of assessment proceeding, Assessing officer directed the Assessee to submit details with

Sh. Badaluram, Fauladpur, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-Behror, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 720/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return of income on 29.03.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 3,94,820/- and agricultural income of Rs. 4,69,750/- for the year under consideration. The ITO, Ward-1, Sikar has intimated that the assessee has made payment ... documents have already been provided in the case. 3.7 Now, the assessee's income is a meagre income at Rs. 3,94,820/- and agricultural income of Rs. 4,69,750/- for the year which doesn't corroborate with the huge transaction amount of Rs 1 crore being debited from

Sheela Ashok Bafna, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 68

facie evidence, the purchases of shares have been contemporaneously entered into the books of account of the assessee. 10.2 The assessee has been declaring agricultural income in his returns of income for the assessment years from 1990-91 to 2001-02. The total agricultural income returned by the assessee ... purchase of shares as on 31-3-1999 was Rs. 4,48,160. The cash available with the assessee by way of agricultural income was much higher than the investment made by the assessee in the purchase of shares as on 31-3-1999. After making the investments

Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

ITA 883/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बिधम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

income filed. The Assessing Officer while completing proceedings under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act made certain additions on account of agricultural income, deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, cash in hand and adhoc addition out of expenses and interest payment to Ravi Cooperative

Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

ITA 882/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बिधम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

income filed. The Assessing Officer while completing proceedings under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act made certain additions on account of agricultural income, deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, cash in hand and adhoc addition out of expenses and interest payment to Ravi Cooperative

Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 are partly allowed

ITA 881/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal (Adv)For Respondent: Shri K. C Selvamani (DR)
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

income filed. The Assessing Officer while completing proceedings under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act made certain additions on account of agricultural income, deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, cash in hand and adhoc addition out of expenses and interest payment to Ravi Cooperative

Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the

ITA 880/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

income filed. The Assessing Officer while completing proceedings under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act made certain additions on account of agricultural income, deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, cash in hand and adhoc addition out of expenses and interest payment to Ravi Cooperative

Dy.CIT CC -5(2) Cent. RG. -5, Mumbai vs. M/S. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the

ITA 2571/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बिधम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

income filed. The Assessing Officer while completing proceedings under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act made certain additions on account of agricultural income, deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, cash in hand and adhoc addition out of expenses and interest payment to Ravi Cooperative

DCIT- CC5(2), Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the

ITA 2569/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बिधम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

income filed. The Assessing Officer while completing proceedings under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act made certain additions on account of agricultural income, deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, cash in hand and adhoc addition out of expenses and interest payment to Ravi Cooperative

CIT -CC5(2) Central RG., -5, Mumbai vs. M/S. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2565/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बिधम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

income filed. The Assessing Officer while completing proceedings under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act made certain additions on account of agricultural income, deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, cash in hand and adhoc addition out of expenses and interest payment to Ravi Cooperative