← 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

Sunil Kumar Pathak, Rewa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Rewa

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

ITA 37/JAB/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesunil Kumar Pathak Vs. Ito, Ward – 1, 3Rd Floor, A Block, Shilpi Rewa-486001, Plaza, Pili Kothi, Madhya Pradesh. Rewa-486001, Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Arwpp9628A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Dhiraj Ghai.Fca.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Shiv Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Dhiraj Ghai.FCA.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148

case Id CIT (A) erred in confirming AO order on incorrect facts and assumptions viz. a) that assessee has not filled return showing agricultural income without considering the fact and law that If the income earned in the financial is only from agricultural, year then it is not required ... course of hearing proceedings, the AO has called for the sources of purchase of property at Bhopal and submit the evidences in support of agriculture income. Since the assessee does not have PAN and the assessee has purchased in auction, the property from Bank of Baroda which was seized

Satbir Singh, Sonipat vs. ITO Ward - 4, Sonipat

ITA 816/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 54

confirming the addition of Rs. 722500/- as income of the assessee without considering the reply before AO that the income has been shown agriculture income of the appellant without considering the land holding of the appellant. This may kindly be treated agriculture income 3. As could be seen from ... dispute, the assessee filed his 2 | P a g e AY: 2017-18 return of income on 01.08.2017 declaring Nil income. Whereas, he disclosed agricultural income of Rs. 8,58,47,500/-. Assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine large agricultural income and capital gain/loss on sale

Harishbhai G. Chovatiya, Sarthana, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 486/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.486/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Harishbhai G Chovatiya Income Tax Officer, 18, Bapa Sitaram Row House, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat, Vs Kamrej Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Sarthana, Majura Gate, Surat- 394101 Surat-395001 Pan No: Agdpc 6539 M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69A

that assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for assessment year 2016-17 on 17.01.2017 declaring income of Rs.3,61,610/- and agricultural income for rate purpose of Rs.1,06,978/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee has shown

Bayer Cropscience Ltd (Sucessor to Monsanto India Limited Mil), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG- 10(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2302/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

jurisdictional High Court and the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, whereby the assessee’s claim of exemption in respect of agricultural income was allowed in the earlier years. 5. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 28/03/2013, passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with ... assessment proceedings under section 131 of the Act, the AO held that the assessee has not undertaken the basic agricultural operations, hence the agriculture income if any accrued is to the farmer and not to the assessee. By referring to the Seed Production Agreement entered with the farmers

JCIT (OSD)- 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Bayer Cropscience Ltd (Sucessor to Monsanto India Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2124/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

jurisdictional High Court and the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, whereby the assessee’s claim of exemption in respect of agricultural income was allowed in the earlier years. 5. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 28/03/2013, passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with ... assessment proceedings under section 131 of the Act, the AO held that the assessee has not undertaken the basic agricultural operations, hence the agriculture income if any accrued is to the farmer and not to the assessee. By referring to the Seed Production Agreement entered with the farmers

Bayer Cropscience Ltd (Sucessor to Monsanto India Limited Mil), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG- 10(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3763/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

jurisdictional High Court and the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, whereby the assessee’s claim of exemption in respect of agricultural income was allowed in the earlier years. 5. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 28/03/2013, passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with ... assessment proceedings under section 131 of the Act, the AO held that the assessee has not undertaken the basic agricultural operations, hence the agriculture income if any accrued is to the farmer and not to the assessee. By referring to the Seed Production Agreement entered with the farmers

Van Ooord India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 5(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1686/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Van Oord India Pvt Ltd Acit Circle 5(3)(2) 201, 2Nd Floor, Central Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Vs. Plaza, 166 Cst Road, Mumbai- 400020 Kalina, Mumbai- 400098

For Appellant: Shri. Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Kumar Sharma & Anil Sant
Section 250

profits of a company engaged in agricultural act agricultural activities, the Central Government sought ivities, the Central Government sought to levy tax on the agricultural income earned by the to levy tax on the agricultural income earned by the to levy tax on the agricultural income earned by the company ... that since the taxability of agricultural company, that since the taxability of agricultural company, that since the taxability of agricultural income fell within the State List, the Central income fell within the State List, the Central income fell within the State List, the Central Government did not have the power

M/S. S.R. Ferro Alloys, Jhabua vs. The PCIT, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 148/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

Section 263

Assessing Officer. Thus, there was no material to support the claim of the appellant that the said amount represented compensation for loss of agricultural income. He accepted the entry in the statement of the account filed by the appellant in the absence of any supporting material and without making

Prakash Davara, Raipur vs. Assistant Coimmissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 177/RPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 177/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prakash Davara, 08, Gitanjali Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Acupd0169K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: S/shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR &
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 156Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y.2009- 10 on 31.03.2010, declaring an income of Rs.3,11,080/- a/w. agricultural income of Rs.4,51,375/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such ... order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 30.03.2016 determined the income of the assessee at Rs.33,11,080/- a/w. agricultural income of Rs.4,51,375/- and initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the reason that he had concealed particulars

DCIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Urmila Goyal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1650/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Prateek Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 44A

bank, the assessee submitted that the cash deposited in the bank account is from the available “cash in hand” and from past savings and agricultural income. The ld. AR has also submitted that the assessee has received rental income and an amount of Rs.8,34,000/- has been shown

DCIT Centyral Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Urmila Goyal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1649/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Prateek Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 44A

bank, the assessee submitted that the cash deposited in the bank account is from the available “cash in hand” and from past savings and agricultural income. The ld. AR has also submitted that the assessee has received rental income and an amount of Rs.8,34,000/- has been shown

DCIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Dhruva Goel, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1647/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Prateek Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 44A

bank, the assessee submitted that the cash deposited in the bank account is from the available “cash in hand” and from past savings and agricultural income. The ld. AR has also submitted that the assessee has received rental income and an amount of Rs.8,34,000/- has been shown

DCIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Dhruva Goel, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1646/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Prateek Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 44A

bank, the assessee submitted that the cash deposited in the bank account is from the available “cash in hand” and from past savings and agricultural income. The ld. AR has also submitted that the assessee has received rental income and an amount of Rs.8,34,000/- has been shown

Dhruva Goel, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1603/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Prateek Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 44A

bank, the assessee submitted that the cash deposited in the bank account is from the available “cash in hand” and from past savings and agricultural income. The ld. AR has also submitted that the assessee has received rental income and an amount of Rs.8,34,000/- has been shown

Dhruva Goel, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1602/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Prateek Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 44A

bank, the assessee submitted that the cash deposited in the bank account is from the available “cash in hand” and from past savings and agricultural income. The ld. AR has also submitted that the assessee has received rental income and an amount of Rs.8,34,000/- has been shown

Urmila Goyal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1601/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Prateek Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 44A

bank, the assessee submitted that the cash deposited in the bank account is from the available “cash in hand” and from past savings and agricultural income. The ld. AR has also submitted that the assessee has received rental income and an amount of Rs.8,34,000/- has been shown

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 5623/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usshri Rajesh Kumar Vs. Jcit 1/3256, Ram Nagar, Range – 45, Mandoli Road, Shahdara New Delhi Delhi-110032 Pan No. Agfpk 1653 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Y. K. Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 24Section 54B

record as to why the same is not chargeable to tax. Secondly, it appears from the records that assessee has not declared any agricultural income for rate purpose. 3. The statement and details furnished further reveals that the assessee has received cash gift of Rs.5 lacs from his father Shri

George Stanley, Thiruvalla vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle, Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram

ITA 587/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Ms.Telma Raju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

were standing on the land at the time of it’s sale, and which were being regularly tapped, save for the relevant year, yielding agricultural income. Further, the same were cut down by the buyer in July, 2013, subsequent to transfer. This stands clarified by the Village Agricultural Officer

DCIT, Cochin vs. Shri M George ( Mukkadayil Joseph George), Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 525/COCH/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdy. Cit, Circle 2(1), Range – 2 M.J. George C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Mukkadayil House Kochi 682018 Vs. Krishnaswamy Cross Road Ernakulam, Kochi - 682035 [Pan: Adgpg6991D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By: Sri R. Lokanathan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 Order Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Agitating The Allowance Of The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 31.12.2008 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07, By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kochi [Cit(A)] Vide His Order Dated 31.03.2011. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Who Had Returned His Income For The Year At Rs.63,420/- (From Business & Other Sources), Was Found To Have A Credit Of Rs.899.10 Lakhs In His Bank Account On 14.02.2006. The Same Was Explained In The Assessment Proceedings As Sale Proceeds Of 5.21 Acres Of Land At Kakkanad Village, Falling Under Thrikkakara Panchayat, Sold For Rs.977.10 Lakhs Vide Registered Sale Deed Dated 13.02.2006. The Sale Was In Pursuance Of An Agreement To Sell Dated 09.01.2006, Receiving Rs.78 Lakhs As Advance. The Said Land

For Appellant: Sri R. Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

land. No evidence to prove the carrying on of agricultural operations on the land prior to its sale has been furnished, nor is the agricultural income offered commensurate with either the crop or the trees stated to be standing thereat at the time of sale. ITANo. 525/Coch/2011 ... basis of the use to which the land was actually put. The same stands established as agricultural on the basis of returning agricultural income by the assessee over the years, and for which he has an electric connection, having in fact consumed 24136 units since inception. Variations therein from year

Shri Bhadresh Ramniklal Nagda, Jamnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1), Jamnagar

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/RJT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 56

well as on fact to confirm the Order of ld AO to retain addition of Rs. 247786 as unexplained income though the same is agricultural income earned by appellant on regular basis and by doing agricultural activities hence addition is contrary to the fact of case and provision ... therefore the same may be deleted Without prejudice even he intent to add the same it should have been added in the agricultural income which is tax free. 3 Ld. CIT Appeal Jamnagar Erred on law as well as on fact to confirm the Order