← 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

Naramuthu Naicker Nataraj, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tirupur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1400/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. Yeshwanth Kumar, CA
Section 115BSection 133Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 4. Before the ld. CIT(A) it was contented that amount deposited in cash is out of agricultural income as assessee is basically agriculturist engaged in agricultural operation. It was stated before the ld. CIT(A) by the assessee that assessee had advanced money ... stating that no proof of sale of agricultural produce or details of land has been filed and even assessee has not filed proof of agricultural income earned :- 4 -: in previous years and surplus arising out of the same. Hence he confirmed the action of the ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, assessee

Neeta Rajesh Lodha, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 408/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.408/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Neeta Rajesh Lodha बिधम/ Cit(Appeals)/Nfac 20/22, Shamseth Street, National Faceless Appeal, Vs. Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- Centre (Nfac), Delhi. 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abdpl8053A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 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 20.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.2,61,43,231/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding The Addition Of Rs.5,22,865/- As Commission (2% Of Sales Proceeds) For Arranging Bogus Ltcg U/S 69 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68Section 69

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

Mr Bhavesh Kantilal Kubadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-21(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1490/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mr. Bhavesh Kantilal बिधम/ Ito, Ward-21(1)(2) Kubadia Room No. 104, 1St Floor, Vs. 7, 2Nd Floor, Neminath Piramal Chamber, Building, S. K. Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai- (Dadar (W), Mumbai- 400012. 400028. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agrpk2377D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 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 24.04.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.77,02,597 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding The Addition Of Rs.2,31,038/- As Commission (3% Of Ltcg) For Arranging Bogus Ltcg U/S 69 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68Section 69

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

Inderjit Singh, Sangrur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward- Sangrur, Sangrur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 605/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: The Cit(A) Has Not Been Considered Properly. 4. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend The Grounds Of Appeal Before The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off.” 3. During The Course Of Hearing, The Ld Ar Submitted That This Is A Case Of An Individual Who Is An Agriculturist. Notice Under Section 142(1) Dated 09.03.2018 Was Issued In The Case Of The Assessee For Filling The Return Of Income. The Department Issued The Said Notice To The Assessee On Account Of Information With The Department

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 69

submitted that the Assessee has filed a cash flow statement before the department. The Assessee is an agriculturist and derives gross agricultural income to the tune of Rs. 15,79,864/- during the year under consideration (copy of J-Form placed on record). Further the copy of the statement ... cash in hand as per the cash flow statement is duly supported by proper source in the form of cash withdrawals from banks, agricultural income and sale of rural agricultural land. Even Otherwise, in the case of the Assessee, even the department has not brought out any material on record

Konathala Nooku Naidu, Anakapalle vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anakapalle

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 269/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.269/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Konathala Nooku Naidu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Anakapalle. Ward-1, Pan: Aczpn 4551 C Anakapalle. (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 : 12/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 18/03/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Limited Scrutiny under CASS to examine the cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period and the claim of exemption of agricultural income. Subsequently, a notice U/s. 143(2) was issued on 15/08/2018 and duly served on the assessee. Thereafter, notice

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.95/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 09.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.3,20,97,772/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 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

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 94/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.94/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 07.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.73,11,760/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68

been contemporaneously entered into the books of account of the assessee. 23 A.Y. 2012-13 Sheetal Rupesh Savla 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

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 93/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.93/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.3,17,12,750/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 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

Lingamurthi Thota, Medak vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Siddipet

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

ITA 568/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.568/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Lingamurthy Thota Vs. Income Tax Officer Medak Ward-1 Pan:Aefpt7720P Siddipet (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15/03/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 80C

declaring total income of Rs.5,68,350/- after claiming deduction u/s 80C of Chapter VIA at Rs.1,50,000/-. The assessee has also declared agricultural income of Rs.1,54,670/-. The return was selected for scrutiny and statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 21.9.2018 requiring

Dr. C Usha, Palakkad vs. ITO Ward-3, Palakkad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 657/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Mar 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmidr. C. Usha Income Tax Officer Modern Hospital Ward -3, Palakkad Guruvayur Road, Koottanad Vs. Palakkad 679533 [Pan:Aafpu8363H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.V. Venkitaraman, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

dated 08.04.2022. 2.1 The only issue arising in the appeal is qua the non-acceptance by the Revenue of the assessee’s claim for agricultural income, returned for the year at Rs.45 lakhs, to an extent of Rs. 9 lac, which, accordingly, gets assessed as income from other sources ... orders by the Revenue authorities. It cannot, therefore be stated if the actual accretion therein for the year agrees, even if broadly, with the agricultural income returned by the family members. It was though clarified by Shri Venkitaraman during hearing that the related expenditure being in cash, it is only

Dhirubhai M Patel-HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-7(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1687/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Parin S. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

development. For the AY 2016-17, the assessee filed his return of income on 30/03/2018 declaring total income of Rs.82,30,270/- and agricultural income of Rs.9,50,000/-. The return was taken up for scrutiny assessment and various notices issued u/s.143(2) of the Act calling from the details ... agricultural income shown by the assessee. In response thereto, the assessee has not produced details of the agricultural income, nature of crops grown, etc. except 7/12 Revenue records. In the absence of any further details, the Assessing Officer treated the agricultural income of Rs.9,50,000/- as the “income from

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 788/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

cooperative bank etc. As per the second proviso, this provision would also not be applicable where both the depositor and the receiver are having agricultural income and neither of them has any income chargeable to tax under the Act. 18. Section 271D of the Act deals with penalty for failure

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 787/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

cooperative bank etc. As per the second proviso, this provision would also not be applicable where both the depositor and the receiver are having agricultural income and neither of them has any income chargeable to tax under the Act. 18. Section 271D of the Act deals with penalty for failure

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 786/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

cooperative bank etc. As per the second proviso, this provision would also not be applicable where both the depositor and the receiver are having agricultural income and neither of them has any income chargeable to tax under the Act. 18. Section 271D of the Act deals with penalty for failure

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 785/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

cooperative bank etc. As per the second proviso, this provision would also not be applicable where both the depositor and the receiver are having agricultural income and neither of them has any income chargeable to tax under the Act. 18. Section 271D of the Act deals with penalty for failure

Umesh Ambikaprasad Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4620/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

jointly held by him along with other family members since 2006 and 2007. For the year under consideration, the Assessee has derived exempt agricultural income, remuneration from M/s. Prama Instruments P. Ltd. and M/s. Prama Intech Pvt. Ltd., interest on Fixed Deposits, LIC Commission as well as share of profit ... vide order dated 04.03.2014 wherein the Assessing Officer made addition amounting to %.22,70,610/- under section 68 of the Act by treating the agriculture income derived from the agricultural land as unexplained cash credit. In addition to the above, the Assessing Officer also made addition amount

Umesh A Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1848/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

jointly held by him along with other family members since 2006 and 2007. For the year under consideration, the Assessee has derived exempt agricultural income, remuneration from M/s. Prama Instruments P. Ltd. and M/s. Prama Intech Pvt. Ltd., interest on Fixed Deposits, LIC Commission as well as share of profit ... vide order dated 04.03.2014 wherein the Assessing Officer made addition amounting to %.22,70,610/- under section 68 of the Act by treating the agriculture income derived from the agricultural land as unexplained cash credit. In addition to the above, the Assessing Officer also made addition amount

Mohinder Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 28 (1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1967/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Mohinder Kumar Jain, Vs. Dcit, B-2, Pushpanjali Circle-28(1), Farms Bijwasan New Delhi Road, Kapashera, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aagpj1935P Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/03/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)

income for AY 2012-13 was filed by the assessee on 27.09.2012 declaring taxable income of Rs. 1,32,35,806/- which includes agricultural income of Rs. 48,55,246/-. A survey operation u/s 133A of the Act was carried out in the premises of the assessee on 05.05.2011. During

Unnikrishnan. K, Kunnampally vs. The ITO Ward 2, Tirur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms, and his stay petition dismissed

ITA 955/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148(1)

year was in the first instance made on 10/3/2014 at Rs. 2,07,10,622, by including the following incomes to the returned, including agricultural, income of Rs. 6,67,481: 1. Sale of lottery tickets - Rs.1,45,41,362 2. Brokerage paid - Rs. 2,62,640 3. Rent paid ... order vide Rs. 5,87,297 Appeal No. ITA-113/Tribunal/CIT/CLT/2014-15 dt. 2-6-2014 Revised total income: Rs.1,94,67,841 Add. Agricultural Income Rs. 1,50,000 Aggregate total income Rs.1,96,17,840 The assessee appealing there-against, the ld. CIT(A) after confirming from the record

Bhagvanjibhai Somabhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Vadodara

ITA 746/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 69A

dated 31.03.2021 was issued to the assessee. In response, the assessee filed his Return of Income on 13.04.2021 declaring Nil income and agricultural income of Rs.12,24,600/-. The assessee was issued with notice u/s. 143(2) on 09.07.2021 and during Faceless Assessment proceedings issued further notices under ... asking the assessee to furnish certified English Translation of agricultural land sold, proof of agricultural income certificate and details of agricultural land holdings. 3. The assessee replied that the cash deposits is from agricultural income of past years as well as sale of 50% of his agricultural land vide Sale