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

ITA 2563/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. बनाम/ 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

Kandera Brick Field, Meerut vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Meerut

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

ITA 3680/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyakandera Brick Field, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (5), C/O Shiam Lal Jain, Advocate, Meerut. 214/3, Police Street Sadar, Meeruti – 250 001 (Uttar Pradesh).

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

context, in case of Shri Chandra Pal Singh, Shri Vikram Singh and Shri Ompal Singh, withdrawals from partnership from M/s Arya Brick Field and agricultural income is stated to be the source of cash. The ledger A/cs from the other firm and the agricultural land holdings documents are provided ... another person. However, apart from the letters of Shri Dhararn Pal Singh and lease deed on plain paper, no other proof is given. With agricultural income not shown in the ITR, the existence of agricultural land is to be proved and that is not given. Further, the sale proceeds from

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

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

ITA 580/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri Jhabakh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 133ASection 153A

this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in not considering the agricultural income and treating the agricultural income at nil. 6. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee has declared agricultural income i.e., net agricultural income at Rs.3.50 ... lakhs and claimed gross agricultural income at Rs.5.50 lakhs. The assessee claimed that there is agricultural land in his name at Ravathur Pririvu and Yelaneli Village, Coonoor Taluk. The assessee did not Rs.5,50,000/- lakhs and expenditure bill for a sum of Rs.2,01,500/-. The assessee claimed

Sunil Dagadu Mhaskar, Panvel vs. Income Tax Department, Thane

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

ITA 2846/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 132Section 153ASection 69A

assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.19 lakhs relating to agricultural income made by the Assessing Officer. 2. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee belongs to Mhatre group which is one of the largest ... sources of the same. The assessee 2 Sunil Dagadu Mhaskar claimed that the above said cash balance has been accumulated out of the agricultural income earned by the assessee. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has declared agricultural income in various years as under:- Sr.No. A.Y. Amount of agricultural

Sobhi Lal Saini, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-61(1), Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 167/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 271(1)(c)

counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had claimed bona fide exemption in respect of land being agricultural and compensation was received as agricultural income. He submitted that the AO made addition by denying the bonafide claim of exemption. The figures of capital gain were already on the file

Shankar Reddy Marreddy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9 (1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 245/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Shankar Reddy Marreddy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 16-11-16V, Ward – 9(1), R.T.A. Office Back Lane, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Telangana – 500036. Pan : Attpm6238Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Abhiroop Bhargav, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Mookambikeyan, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 03.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri K. Abhiroop Bhargav, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mookambikeyan, Sr.AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 69ASection 80CSection 80D

assessee in his bank during the period of demonetisation. He further submitted that assessee has filed return of income for four years, where the agricultural income on cash basis was shown. The ld. AR further submitted that though the Assessing Officer has also mentioned in assessment order that the assessee ... agricultural income from 26 acres however, he ignored the same stating that there was no supporting document and evidence to substantiate his case of sale of agriculture produce in cash. The ld. AR pleaded that considering the above facts and circumstances, the addition of unexplained income was unwarranted and should

Shri Paresh N. Patel, Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Baroda

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

ITA 23/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.23/Ahd/2015 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Vatsal Paresh Patel, Income Tax Officer, L/H Of Paresh N Patel, Vs. Ward 2(4), 16 Kamalkunj Society, Baroda. Nizampura, Vadodara-390002. Pan: Blqpp4850H

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR

Section 271Section 68

fact and in law in confirming the action of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4) Baroda ["the AO"] in making addition of agriculture income of Rs. 20 ,74,033/- treating it as income earned from undisclosed sources. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact ... Ground nos. 1 and 2, the learned AO erred in fact and in law in not allowing the set off of addition of agriculture income treated as other income from the additions made u/s. 68 of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact

Venugopal Rao Lankalapally, Nizamabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Nizamabad

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

ITA 241/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Venugopal Rao Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Lankalapally, Ward – 3, H.No.3-145/3, Jaithapur, Nizamabad. Yedpally, Nizamabad – 503202. Telangana. Pan : Aimpl2649E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Phanindra, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Mookambikeyan, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Phanindra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mookambikeyan, Sr.AR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 282Section 69A

u/s.69A of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) failed. to appreciate that the Appellant had explained the sources for. the deposits to be of' agricultural income, and filed copies of patta pass books & copies sale bills of paddy which the AO has not accepted. 3. The finding ... year 2017-18. In response, the assessee vide the submissions e-filed has explained that all the cash deposits and other credits belong to agricultural income only. In support of the claim, the assessee furnished copies of the patta pass books standing in the name of self and family members

Shri Suresh Kumar, Bhopal vs. The ITO-5(3), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 414/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Suresh Kumar, Income-Tax Officer, S/O Shri Laxman Singh 5(3), Sahu, Bhopal H.No.06,New Jail Road, बनाम/ Ratan Colony, Vs. Karond, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ayvpk 6096 P Assessee By Shri Nitin Kaushik, Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02.04.2024

Section 115BSection 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69A

income of AY 2017-18 by 31.03.2018. In response, the assessee filed return on 07.09.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 1,03,228/- and agricultural income of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The AO treated the return filed by assessee as invalid since it was filed beyond the time permitted

Shri Nagjibhai Kuberbhai Kheni, Bhavnagar vs. Asst Unit, I Tax Dept. ( Income Tax Officer Ward 1(9) Bhavanagar ), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 862/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)

cotton crops. For the Asst. Year 2020-21, the assessee filed his Return of Income 22.12.2020 declaring total income of Rs.3,13,560/- and agricultural income of Rs.25,86,233/- The Return of Income was taken up for ‘limited scrutiny’ assessment for verifying the agricultural income, since for the earlier ... Asst. Year 2019-20, the assessee has declared agricultural income of Rs.6,25,300/- only. The assessee was required to explain the sudden increase in the agricultural income, by issuing various notices. Since there was no compliance by the assessee, the Assessing Officer added the agricultural income of Rs.25

Late Babu Rao Peddi L/R Annapurna Peddi, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 122/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad25 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.122/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Annapurna Peddy Late Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R Of Shri Babu Rao Ward 6(2) Peddy Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aubpp8828N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/03/2024

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

from house property, income from Page 1 of 4 ITA No 122 of 2024 Late Babu Rao Peddi L/R Annapurna Peddi other sources and agricultural income. He filed his return of income for the impugned A.Y on 26.06.2017 admitting taxable income of Rs.1,03,390/-and agricultural income

Satanarayana Vajrapu, Miryalguda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nalgonda

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

ITA 119/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Induri Rama Rao & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.119/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Satyanarayana Vs. Income Tax Officer Vajrapu Ward-1 Miryalguda Nalgonda Pan:Abhpv8434F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Shri Satyanarayana Vajrapu – Assessee C.A राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/03/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Shri SatyanarayanaFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

that the assessee filed his return of income for the A.Y 2016-17 electronically on 6.6.2017 admitting total income of Rs.8,16,140/- and agricultural income of Rs.9,30,000/-. The return was selected Page 1 of 4 ITA No 119 of 2024 Satyanarayana Vajrapu for scrutiny under CASS

Goldgreen Land Holdings LLP( Formerly Gold Green Holdings Private Limited), Shankarpally Mandal, Mirzaguda vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 473/HYD/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 473/Hyd/2023 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Goldgreen Land Holdings Llp Vs. Income Tax Officer, (Formerly Gold Green Holdings Ward-2(1), Private Limited), Hyderabad Shankarpally Mandal, Mirzaguda [Pan No. Aadcg2864N] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 22/03/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 07/08/2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Goldgreen Land Holdings Private Limited (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Assessee Preferred This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 48Section 50C

appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 16/10/2017 declaring taxable income of Rs. 861/-, agricultural income of Rs. 8,64,591/- and exempted income on sale of agriculture land Rs. 4,42,42,234/-. During the course of assessment proceedings ... assessee has carried out the agriculture activity on the said land from the financial year 2009-10 onwards. The assessee also derived the agriculture income from the said land and accounted the same in the books of account as well as in the return of income filed since

Ganni Satyavani, Kurellagudem vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Eluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 297/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.297/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ganni Satyavani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Kurellagudem. Ward-2, Pan: Bukpg 4038 H Eluru. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 22/03/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

NFAC the assessee submitted that the source of income is out of the sale of oil palm and deposits are out of agricultural income. However, the Ld. 3 CIT(A)-NFAC observed that the assessee has not filed any books of account and other details in support of its contention

DCIT-19(1), Income Tax vs. Pavan Kumar B Chandan (E-Filed), Mumbai

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2594/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax - 7(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai vs. Nisha Shantaram Pokle, Mumbai

ITA 2546/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. AR)

Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN

Ajay Shankarlal Bankda, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2484/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2484/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ajay Shankarlal Bankda बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-16(2) B Wing 4301, Db Woods, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Gokuldham, Goregaon East, Maharshi Karve Marg Mumbai-400063. Road, New Marine Lines, Churchagate, Mumbai- 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpb2851J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri Anil Sant (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 21.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.88,06,950/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Income Tax Officer-27(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sachin Velji Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2044/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri_Nayanjyoti Nath (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

Margani Govinda Raju, Kadiyapulanka vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 251/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.251/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Margani Govinda Raju, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Kadiyapulanka, Ward-2(3), East Godavari Dist. Rajahmundry. Pan: Aocpm 3465 K (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 20/03/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

filed his return of income for the AY 2016-17 on 9/6/2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 2,69,350/- after claiming net agricultural income of Rs. 31,00,000/- as exempt. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny and a notice U/s. 143(2) dated 23/6/2017 was served ... Adangal etc. On perusal of the assessee’s submissions and particulars submitted before him, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee has claimed net agricultural income from nursery at Rs. 31,00,000/- as exempt which appears abnormal when compared to the normal agriculturist, whose produce from agriculture is seasonal

Faizan E Burhane Millat Trust, Jabalpur vs. The CIT Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 55/IND/2023[00]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanifaizan E Burhane Millat Cit(Exemption) Trust Bhopal 181/1, Baitla Colony Vfj Society, Ward Shaheed, Abdul Vs. Hameed, Raza Chowk Milk, Scheme Road, Jabalpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaatf8671J Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Nd Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. -Dr Date Of Hearing 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2024

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(b)

trust in its objects to the said community would render the trust as ineligible for claiming exemption under the similar provisions of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act. Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that when there is nothing in the object of the assessee trust to restrict the benefit