← 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

Samirbhai Sarmanbhai Maru, Junagadh vs. ITO, Ward-1, Junagadh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

ITA 734/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 734/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Samir Sarmanbhai Maru The Ito, Ward – 1, Plot No. 142, Raj Laxmi Park, Opp. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Shakti Chambers, Reliance Mall, Nr. Motibaug, Morbi – 363641 Junagadh (Guj) - 362001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agcpm6848G (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/01/2026 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

case is that assessee before me is an individual and filed e-return of income, declaring total income of Rs.4,27,700/- and agriculture income of Rs.5,67,240/-, on 29.03.2018. During the year under consideration, the assessee was partner in M/s Radhe Developers and derived income in form ... under consideration. On going through the cash book for the year under consideration, it was found that the assessee has claimed to received gross agriculture income of Rs.8,14,000/- in cash. The assessee has claimed agriculture expenses of Rs.2,46,760/- i.e. 30% of gross agriculture receipts. The assessee

Amit Singh, Chandigarh vs. Addl.CIT-Range-5, Chandigarh

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 238/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Chauhan Singh (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 273B

emerges that the assessee filed return of income declaring business income of Rs.1,17,930/- and other income of Rs.7,500/-. The assessee declared agricultural income of Rs.14 Lacs which was accepted by Ld. AO in the assessment proceedings. However, Ld. AO disallowed Architect Fees of Rs.1.75 Lacs which ... Rs.36.62 Lacs only as tabulated above. 4. During first appeal, the assessee contended that the assessee as well as the lenders was having agricultural income and his income was also below taxable limit and therefore, such penalties were not leviable. Another contention was that the transactions were under bona-fide

Amit Singh, Chandigarh vs. Addl.CIT-Range-5, Chandigarh

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 237/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Chauhan Singh (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 273B

emerges that the assessee filed return of income declaring business income of Rs.1,17,930/- and other income of Rs.7,500/-. The assessee declared agricultural income of Rs.14 Lacs which was accepted by Ld. AO in the assessment proceedings. However, Ld. AO disallowed Architect Fees of Rs.1.75 Lacs which ... Rs.36.62 Lacs only as tabulated above. 4. During first appeal, the assessee contended that the assessee as well as the lenders was having agricultural income and his income was also below taxable limit and therefore, such penalties were not leviable. Another contention was that the transactions were under bona-fide

Srirangarao Nadipallly, Karimnagar vs. ACIT., Circle-1, Karimnagar

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

ITA 844/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.844/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Srirangarao Nadipally Vs. Assistant Commissioner Karimnagar Of Income Tax Pan:Acbpn3816E Circle-1, Karimnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Adv. Kvssn Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sankar Pandi P - Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Srirangarao Nadipally (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24.03.2025 For The A.Y 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Adv. KVSSN KumarFor Respondent: Sankar Pandi P - Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

statement explaining the sources. However, the Ld. AO was not satisfied with the source explained out of opening cash balance of Rs.91,22,287/-, agricultural income of Rs.9,00,000/- and loan received from Smt. Tharamma amounting to Rs.9,50,000/-. Accordingly, the Ld. AO added these amounts aggregating ... submitted that the second issue arising from the grounds of appeal relates to the addition of Rs.9,00,000/- made on account of agricultural income. In this regard, the Ld. AR invited our attention to the statement of affairs of the assessee as on 31.03.2016 placed at page

Yadagiri Gurram, Nalgonda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nalgonda

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

ITA 1214/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी. सं / Ita No.1214/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Yadagiri Gurram Nalgonda Pan:Bdrpg9128G (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Nalgonda (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Adv. Dayakar राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 09/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Yadagiri Gurram, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 30.05.2025 For The A.Y 2017-18.

For Appellant: Adv. DayakarFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar AVES, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 271ASection 271FSection 69A

unjustified. He explained that the source of cash deposits as explained to the Ld. CIT (A) was Rs.3,50,000/- out of agricultural income for the year under consideration, Rs.2,00,000/- out of past savings and Rs.1,68,193/- out of collection from sundry trade debtors outstanding ... regards agricultural income, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is the owner of 7.28 acres of agricultural land and earning agricultural income of Rs.3,50,000/- from such land is reasonable and not excessive. He further submitted that in rural areas agricultural produce is mostly sold in cash

Sasi Kiran Sunkara, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1190/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 69

that, the total income for the impugned 5 Sasi Kiran Sunkara assessment year for A.Y. 2022-23 was Rs. 1,15,83,712/- and agricultural income of Rs. 4,43,400/-, which is not sufficient to explain the huge amount given to the assessee. Further, on perusal of the balance

Prahlad Singh, Sonepat vs. PCIT, Rohtak, Sonepat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the above very

ITA 3563/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaprahlad Singh, Vs. Pcit, Rohtak 1455/31, Gali No. 2, Ward No. 31, Aayakar Bhawan Pragati Nagar, Opp. Mansarovar Sonepat, Haryana-131001 Park, Rohtak (Pan: Crhps8742R) Haryana-124001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Rahul Agarwal & Rajesh K. Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Jitender Singh, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: S/Shri Rahul Agarwal & Rajesh K. Agarwal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 263Section 69A

filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year 2020-21 on 29.8.2020 declaring total income of Rs.1,48,050/- including net agricultural income of Rs.34,01,132/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO required the assessee to explain and justify the earning of agricultural income ... notice u/s. 144 of the Act requiring the assessee show cause as to why sum of Rs. 34,01,132/- being declared as net agricultural income in the income tax return filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act should not be treated as income from other sources and added

Swaran Kaur, Mohali Sas Nagar vs. Assessing Officer, Ropar

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

ITA 779/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jan 2026AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Ms. Purminder Kaur, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 10(1)Section 144Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 44A

such municipality or cantonment board exceeds 10,00,000. That out of the total cash deposits, the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- represents agricultural income earned by the appellant through cultivation activities. As per section 10(1) of the income tax act, agricultural income is exempt. That the remaining

Jivrajbhai Gopalbhai Kakadia, Surat vs. Ward 1(3)(2), Surat (Present Jurisdiction-Ward 1(3)(1), Surat)

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

ITA 572/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shulabh Padshah, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69A

assessee is an agriculturist and partner in Partnership Firm M/s. Mata Infra and earned interest and profit from partnership firm, Saving bank interest and agricultural income during the year under consideration. During the period of demonetization the assessee deposited cash of Rs. 32,00,000/-, treating the same as unexplainable

Nagaiah Kekkireni, Suryapet vs. ITO., Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 932/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

made an addition 5 ITA 932/Hyd/2025 Nagaiah Kekkireni vs. ITO of the said amount along with an addition of agricultural income of Rs. 60,000/-. 4. The AO, while culminating the assessment, had also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of the particulars

Balguri Rajeshwar Rao, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward- 11(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1728/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1728/Hyd/2025

For Appellant: T Chaitanya Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Helen Ruby Jesindha, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

Kirana and other items and he had made cash deposits of Rs.33,45,200/- during the F.Y. 2018-19 from the business income and agricultural income. The assessee has furnished statement of bank account. 4. The information submitted by the assessee has been examined with respect to the information available

Rasar Biogenetics, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1266/HYD/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Us:

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 28

from agricultural operations. 5. On being queried, it was claimed by the assessee firm that the amount of Rs. 4.15 crores (supra) was its agricultural income and thus, exempt under section 10 of the Act. Alternatively, it was the claim of the assessee firm that as the termination

Income Tax Officer(E) Ward- 2(4), New Delhi, Civic Centre New Delhi vs. Prakash Sewa Trust, Paschim Vihar

ITA 4305/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

sale proceeds to another charitable trust which was controlled by the accommodation entry providers; (iii) the property sold was an agricultural land, however, no agricultural income was offered by the appellant trust for the use of such agricultural land in past years, (iv) the land sold was situated in industrial

Deepak Vegpro (P) Ltd, Alwar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar

ITA 1286/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Since The Assessee Did Not Get Any Respite There, The Assessee Company Is In Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Brij Lal Meena, Addl. CIT

Assessment Order-In Brief 2. As per assessment order dated 23.02.2024, an addition of Rs. 98,460/- was made on account of disallowance of agricultural income that was claimed by the assessee. 3. Claim of the assessee regarding exemption of the said income was on the ground that certain land ... relating to the assessment year 2020- 21, as regards the assessee, and challenging addition of same amount of Rs. 98,460/-, on account of agricultural income, is still pending before Learned CIT(A). 6 Deepak Vegpro (P) Ltd., Alwar. 13. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, we deem

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(1), Trichy Stationed at Thanjavur, Thanjavur vs. Punitha Ganesan, Thanjavur

ITA 2564/CHNY/2025[2023]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj &For Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

filed her return of income for A.Y. 2023-24 on 15.11.2023 by declaring a total income of Rs.11,10,760/- apart from net agricultural income of Rs.4,12,500/-. The case was selected for Complete scrutiny assessment under CASS to verify the sale consideration of property reported by the assessee

Mrs.Punitha Ganesan, Thanjavur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Thanjavur

ITA 2474/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj &For Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

filed her return of income for A.Y. 2023-24 on 15.11.2023 by declaring a total income of Rs.11,10,760/- apart from net agricultural income of Rs.4,12,500/-. The case was selected for Complete scrutiny assessment under CASS to verify the sale consideration of property reported by the assessee

Rameshbhai Makanbhai Bhakta, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Bardoli

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

ITA 413/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Arjav Vidani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

case are that the assessee had filed return of income for A.Y 20171-8 on 29.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.1,75,821/- and agricultural income of Rs.37,25,951/-. The case was selected for scrutiny to examine the agriculture income declared by the Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2– assessee ... course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing officer noticed that the assessee had declared gross agriculture income of Rs.62,09,918/- and claimed agricultural expenses of Rs.24,83,967/-, thereby showing net agriculture income of Rs.37,25,951/-. The Assessing Officer noticed that the net agriculture income as declared

Shri Vasantrai Pursotam Kachalia, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 2 (1) (1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 811/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.811/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17 बनाम/ Vasantrai Pursotam Ito Ward 2(1)(1), Rajkot Vs Kachalia (Original - Ito Ward 2(1)(5), Rajkot) 210-Shrinathji Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Road, Canal Road, Rajkot. Rajkot 360001 Rajkot 360002, Gujarat India "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adspk1354Q (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

record, are as follows. Assessee, filed a return for assessment year (A.Υ.) 2016-17, declaring a total income of Rs.2,84,180/- and agricultural income of Rs.29,13,740/-. Upon scrutiny assessment, during the course of assessment proceedings it was revealed that the claimed agricultural income was mistakenly declared ... instead of profit from the sale of a flat. The Assessee clarified that he was not an agriculturist and had no agricultural land; the "agricultural income" was actually profit received from selling his Mumbai flat for Rs.35 lakhs. Supporting documents, including sale deeds and computation were provided and a revised

Varshaben Chauhan, at Dudhai, Jodiya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

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

ITA 689/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 689/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2020-21) Varshaben Chauhan Ito, Wd – 2(10) At Dudhal, Jodiya, Jamnagar (Guj)-363655 Vs. Jamnagar (Guj) - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ccipc6181L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Suresh Tejwani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2025 : 31/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Tejwani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 250Section 69A

such as, Form no.7 and Form No.8 in respect of land holding proof. The assessee also submitted the relevant documents and evidences relating to agricultural income and expenses. However, assessing officer did not bring these documents and evidences on record/ in the assessment order. The assessing officer finally concluded that ... because of this reason, the assessee did not file the return of income. The amount deposited in the bank account is entirely belongs to agricultural income and past savings from agricultural activities. Therefore, no addition should be made in the hands of the assessee. However, alternatively, the Ld. Counsel

Murubhai Hardasbhai Vasara, Porbandar vs. ITO WD 2 (4), Porbandar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 554/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 554/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2017-18) Murubhai Hardasbhai Vasara Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Porbandar-360550 17, Main Bazar, Village Rana बनाम /Vs. Kandorna, Ranavav, Porbandar- 360 550 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adqpv 9119 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Tejwani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

individual and filed the return of income, on 08.12.2017 electronically, by declaring total income of Rs. 12,990/-, and assessee also declared agricultural income of Rs.9,19,439/-, in the return of income. The returned of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the income tax Act, 1961.Later ... assessee`s case was selected for Limited scrutiny through CASS with issue mentioned that "Cash Deposit during demonetarization period (Large agricultural income shown in ITR and Large cash deposit during demonetarization). Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, was issued on 09/08/2018 and duly served upon the assessee