← 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

Radhey Shyam Yadav, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 814/JPR/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Feb 2024AY 2011-2012
For Appellant: Ms. Nargis Parveen, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69

order was dispatched by speed post RR168513156IN from RL 3020390103 (302039) on 30.10.2018 at 11:38 - (b) Declaring income of 5,710/- and agricultural income of 1,88,500/- as per ITR-3 filed under section 139(1) against the income of 44,350/- and agricultural income

Smt. Raju Bai, Village Rajoda, Dewas vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dewas

Appeal is allowed

ITA 336/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2017-18 Smt. Raju Bai, Ito, Ward 1, 209, Village Rajoda, Dewas बनाम/ Dewas Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Cfipr7269M Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2024

Section 115BSection 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Rs.5,00,000/- on 18.8.2003 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 20.8.2003 from her savings account. She is an agriculturist and she had agricultural income. Once she demonstrated that she was in possession of Rs.7,00,000/- cash plus agricultural income on her hands, if after 40 days, a cash deposit

Komal Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 645/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 645/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Komal Agarwal बिधम / Dcit, Central Circle 7(3) 203, Ugam, N.S Road No.9, Room No 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Ville Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parle (W), Mumbai-400097 Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी लेखध सं/.जीआइआर सं/.Pan/Gir No. : Ahwpr9295B (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Harion TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 68

books maintained by the Assessee. The ITAT has recoded a finding that the source of funds for acquisition of the shares was the agricultural income which was duly offered and assessed to tax in those Assessment Years. The Assessee has produced certificates from the aforesaid four companies to the effect ... 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

Vishwanathareddy Chennareddy, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(7), Bengaluru

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

ITA 900/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemasundara Rao P., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 250Section 251Section 68Section 69A

submissions of the Appellant. 15. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,70,850/- as an expenditure towards the agricultural income and subsequently including it under "income from other sources" without mentioning the relevant section of the Act under which such addition is made ... learned CIT (Appeals) erred in failing to acknowledge the fact that the land documents and invoices pertaining to the agricultural income were duly furnished in the course of the assessment proceedings. 17. The learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (Appeals) both failed to appreciate the fact the appellant

Vijay Rajnikant Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 409/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Gattani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

under Section 57(iii) of the Act. 4. The Ld. PCIT after examination of the case records found that the assessee has claimed exempt agricultural income of Rs. 20,98,238/- and shown to have earned gross agricultural receipts of Rs.23,76,267/- in the return of income filed ... receipt of Rs.23,76,267/-) same was required to be treated as Vijay Rajnikant Patel vs. PCIT Asst.Year – 2018-19 expenses incurred to on agricultural income as opinion formed by the Ld. PCIT and in that view of the matter Rs.6,72,478/- was required to be treated as undisclosed

Kodandaram Nadavati, Nellore vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Nellore

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

ITA 637/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.637/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 ) Shri Kodandaram Nadavati Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Nellore Circle 1 Pan:Afupn9767N Nellore (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mohd.Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 31/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.01.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit(A)-Nfac In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.63,48,500/-To The Total Income Of The Assessee By Not Condoning The Delay Of 138 Days In Filing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mohd.Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

impugned A.Y on 14.03.2-017 declaring total income of Rs.3,08,380/- and Page 1 of 5 ITA No 637 of 2023 Kodandaram Nadavati agricultural income of Rs.85,700/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify as to whether the cash deposits made are from disclosed sources

Meenakshi Mercantiles Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2244/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

from firms Rs. 16,45,319/- ii) Other exempt income dividend Rs. 4,77,17,980/- iii)Interest Rs. 1,00,05,713/- iv) Agricultural income Rs. 1,97,728/- Total exempt income Rs. 5,95,66,740/- However, in the intimation u/s 143(1), the said income was wrongly

Hosthota Suryanarayana Akash(HUF), Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shimoga

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

ITA 957/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nischal .B, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 10(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)

details through the efiling portal during the assessment proceedings. 2.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO observed that, the assessee HUF declared agricultural income of Rs.65,19,279/- during the year under consideration and claimed exemption on the same u/s 10(2) of the Act. The Ld.AO issued ... agricultural land. He has not indicated any existence of a sharecropper or Page 3 of 4 explained how he was conducting the agriculture. The agricultural income is huge compared to his land holding coming to more than Rs. 2 lakhs per acre. Accordingly, the addition/disallowance

Shivappa Thotad, Gadag vs. Income Tax Officer. Ward II, Gadag

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

ITA 1050/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)

from out of past drawings and past savings. Page 2 of 5 3. The learned CIT(Appeals) has not given credit to the agricultural Income of the assessee. 4. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in charging higher ate of tax under section 115BBE. When the source of income

Shri. Krishnaswamy Balaraman, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1028/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 40

Bangalore. The return of income was filed on 31.10.2017 vide eAck No. 280886011311017 declaring an income of Rs. 88,18.580 apart from agricultural income of Rs.10,00,000. The case was taken up for scrutiny. Assessee is an aged person and is about 72 years old. He is not wellversed

Hansa Girish Shah, Thane vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

ITA 3303/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Ms. Kakoli Ghosh, Sr. DR
Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

erred in confirming addition of Rs.6,93,069/- u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I. Tax Act 1961, holding agricultural income of the appellant to be over stated and consequently unexplained cash credit u/s 68 r.w. 115BBE of the CIT(A) I.T Act, 1961, not appreciating that such income ... erred in not granting benefit telescoping telescoping (set (set off) off) of of Rs.6,93,069/- Rs.6,93,069/ being being overstated overstated agricultural income determined by the Id AO against cash deposit agricultural income determined by the Id AO against cash deposit agricultural income determined

Venkata Ramireddy Kalluru, Kurnool vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kurnool

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

ITA 630/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Venkata Ramireddy Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Kalluru, Ward-2, Kurnool. 87/1281/12-F, Somisetty Nagar, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh – 518599. Pan : Dkwpk3931F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu. Revenue By: Shri Aravindakshan, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 30/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sashank DunduFor Respondent: Shri Aravindakshan, SR.AR
Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 294Section 69A

Bombay)[25-042016]. 3. The First Appellate Authority ought to have noticed that the Appellant has no other source of income other than agricultural income and the fact that sale of agriculture produce and receipt of money thereof was deposited in the bank account prior to the de- monetisation period

Asif Khan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-32(3), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1048/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

escapement of income. The assessee might have deposited the cash out of his sale of capital asset, sale of property and sale of investment, agricultural income etc. Therefore, we are inclined to hold the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act as bad in law and hence, we quash ... during the verification before issuance of notice u/s 147. Also the source of the cash gifted by the father which was originated from the agricultural income was also submitted before the revenue authority during the compliance of notice u/s 131 of the Act before issuance of the notice

ITO Ward - 4, Rohtak vs. Surender Dalal, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 7714/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7714/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Ito, Surender Dalal, Ward-4, Vs. Dalal Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Rohtak, Haryana Near Petrol Pump, Gohana Road, Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aqlps2166C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7490/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Surender Dalal, Ito, Dalal Bhawan, Vs. Ward-4, Near Petrol Pump, Aayakar Bhawan, Gohana Road, Rohtak, Haryana Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aqlps2166C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69

facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in not giving assessee the benefit of agricultural income earned by it. (ii) That the addition has been confirmed without making the adjustment of the loan taken by the assessee in this respect

Surender Dalal, Rohtak vs. ITO Ward - 4, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 7490/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7714/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Ito, Surender Dalal, Ward-4, Vs. Dalal Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Rohtak, Haryana Near Petrol Pump, Gohana Road, Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aqlps2166C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7490/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Surender Dalal, Ito, Dalal Bhawan, Vs. Ward-4, Near Petrol Pump, Aayakar Bhawan, Gohana Road, Rohtak, Haryana Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aqlps2166C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69

facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in not giving assessee the benefit of agricultural income earned by it. (ii) That the addition has been confirmed without making the adjustment of the loan taken by the assessee in this respect

M/S. Van-Oord India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 5(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1987/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Van Oord India Pvt. Ltd. 201, 2Nd Floor, Central Plaza, 166 Cst Road, Kalina, Raheja Towers, Opp. Sidbi, Mumbai-400 098 Pan: Aaach5430J ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 5(3) (2) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit Circle 5(3) (2) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Divesh Chawle, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Ld. DR
Section 114Section 250Section 28Section 92(1)

dividend is included in 'income' and is thus covered by Entry 82 of List I to Seventh Schedule, 'taxes on income, other than agricultural income'. The argument on behalf of the assessee was that in 'pith and substance' DDT was a tax on agricultural income, which was rejected

Sanjay Jat, Barwani vs. ITO, Sendhwa

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 332/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Sanjay Jat, Ito, 2, Bagud, Piplaj, Sendhwa बनाम/ Barwani Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ajupj7949Q Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca & Shri N.D. Patwa, Adv Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23.01.2024

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 68Section 69A

assessee to file return by 31.03.2018. In response, the assessee filed a belated return on 20.05.2019 declaring interest income of Rs. 4,537/- and agricultural income of Rs. 21,20,298/-. Although in Para No. 2 and 3 of assessment-order, the AO has noted that the assessee ... explain the sources of cash-deposits but the assessee did not make any compliance. Ultimately, the AO completed assessment u/s 144 whereby he accepted agricultural income to the extent of Rs. 9,63,798/- out of income of Rs. 21,20,298/- declared by assessee. The AO rejected balance

Venkatesan Ramaiah, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporte Ward10(5), Chennai

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

ITA 1294/CHNY/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Mr.Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1294/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Venkatesan Ramaiah, Income Tax Officer #1, Rajammal Street, V. Non Corporate Ward -10(5), 6Th Floor, Wanaparthy Block, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 030 . Aayakar Bhavan, 121, M.G. [Pan: Aabpv-0386-M] Road, Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Anand Babunath, Ca : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Anand Babunath, CA
Section 54B

assessee has e- filed his return of income for assessment year 2016-17 on 20.07.2016, declaring total income of Rs. 10,25,610/- and agricultural income of Rs. 2,05,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify deduction from capital gains. During the course of assessment

Mrs. Nisha Ashish Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO-31(2) (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1519/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1519/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Mrs. Nisha Ashish Gupta बिधम/ Ito-31(2)(4) 1501, Anmol Enclave, Opp Pratyakshakar Bhavan, C- Vs. Patel Auto, Goregaon West, 13, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400062. Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adlpg0969J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vishnu Agarwal/Shri Amit Agarwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/12/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/01/2024 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 18.08.2021 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Disallowing The Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) Claimed By The Assessee In Respect Of Sale Of Shares M/S. Sunrise Asian Limited (Hereafter “M/S. Sunrise”) Of Rs.98,81,550/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). & Thus Denying Deduction U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding Addition Of Rs.1,97,631/- As Commission For Arranging The Bogus Ltcg (2% Of Commission) U/S 69C Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Agarwal/Shri AmitFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr
Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

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

Lalabhagat Limbabhagat Sanya, Bhavnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Bhavnagar

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 969/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18 Lalabhagat Limbabhagat Sanya, Vs Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 2541, City Ring Road, Ward-1(4), Opp. Talaja Jakatnaka, Bhavnagar, Bhavnagar Gujarat-364001 Pan : Ahups 1013 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 271FSection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

case of the appellant. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming an addition of agricultural income of Rs. 12,09,500/- u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Lalabhagat Limbabhagat Sanya Vs. ITO Assessment Year: 2017-18 Page 2 of 4 5. Both