“agricultural income”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(1A) / Rule 7, 7A, 7B(1), 7B(1A), 82,868 judgments

The decision most relied on for agricultural income is CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (315 ITR 1), cited in 363 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on agricultural income

CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)

315 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court

363

citing judgments

Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of land. It is taxable as 'capital gains' and not separately as 'interest income' under the head Income from Other Sources.

CIT v. Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd.

389 ITR 68 · 2016 · High Court

192

citing judgments

Income earned by a cooperative society from investing its surplus funds in short-term deposits and securities is not attributable to its core activities and therefore not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT

414 ITR 67 · 2019 · High Court

190

citing judgments

The Full Bench of the Kerala High Court held that a co-operative bank or society is not entitled to a deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act if it provides loans to non-members. This decision was subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court.

Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO

298 ITR 349 · 2008 · High Court

187

citing judgments

Cash receipts from customers against genuine delivery of goods or services cannot be added as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The case also provides guidance on non-disallowance under Section 40A(3) for business payments made in specific contexts like agricultural markets.

Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Assessing Officer

154 Taxmann.com 305 · 2023 · Supreme Court

136

citing judgments

Section 80P(4) is not applicable to a cooperative bank unless it is classified as a 'bank' under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. For cooperative banks not meeting this definition, the deduction for interest earned from investments in cooperative societies is available under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy

32 ITR 466 · 1957 · Supreme Court

132

citing judgments

Income is considered agricultural income, exempt under Section 10(1), only if the land undergoes a measure of cultivation involving basic primary operations prior to germination and subsequent post-germination activities requiring human skill and labour.

Sabarkhanta Zilla Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. ClT

203 ITR 1027 · 1993 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Co-operative societies or banks engaged in both agricultural and non-agricultural activities are entitled to deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, limited only to the profits derived from agricultural activities, not 100% of their gross profits.

CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd.

301 ITR 384 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

An addition cannot be made under Section 68 for cash credits if it is established that the credits do not pertain to the impugned assessment year but relate to earlier assessment years.

Judgments citing agricultural income

Satyapal Singh, Tonk vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 564/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 563 & 564/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Satyapal Singh Brahman Mohlla Phool Mali Mali Malpura, Tonk cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-02, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BRKPS 0344 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. R. K. Bhatra (CA) & Sh. S. R. Sharma (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Bhatra (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 69

filed his ITR. Vide letter dated 03.04.2021, he has submitted that he is a farmer and his only source of income is agriculture income which is exempt under the Income tax Act. A search & seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Act was conducted at the residential premises of Shri ... loan of Rs: 8,00,000/- given in cash on 05.07.2016 and Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash on 04.07.2017 is explained as family agricultural income. However on perusal of the chart of family income submitted by the appellant it is seen that as on 05.07.2016, appellant did not have

Satyapal Singh, Tonk vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 563/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Bhatra (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 69

Arun Ramkrishna Patil, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm.of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Thane

ITA 2204/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle – 1, Arun R Patil Thane Waddle Building First Ashar It Park Sixth Floor, Floor Raw Number 16 Z Vs. Near Dns Bank Manpower Wagle Industrial Estate Road Dombivali East Thane Maharashtra 400604 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpm4988Q

For Appellant: Shri N A Kulkarni ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha SR DR

Section 143Section 271Section 274Section 68

learner assessing officer has made an addition under section 68 of the income tax act of RFs 2 lakhs, disallowed the agricultural income of ₹ 22,940/– and also disallowed the depreciation out of the seven different vehicles amounting to ₹ 2,376,499. Learned assessing officer while making addition under section

Gaytri Devi, New Delhi vs. Dciti Circle-62(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 9300/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 68

assessee filed her return of income on 08.10.2015 declaring income of Rs. 21,01,230/-. In her return of income, the assessee inadvertently returned agricultural income as Rs. 38 lakhs instead of Rs. 3.80 lakhs. 4. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, when the Assessing Officer asked the assessee ... justify her agricultural income of Rs. 38 lakhs, she replied that it was an inadvertent error and income is only Rs. 3.80 lakhs. It was explained that the assessee tried to revise the return but could not revise it. 5. This explanation of the assessee did not find any favour

Shri. James Kochappu Kolenchery, Canada vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Trivandrum

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 892/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasjames Kochapu Kolenchery Asst. Cit, International 563, Lombarde Ave Oshawa Taxation, Vs. Ontario, Canada Lij8Hs 999999 Thiruvananthapuram [Pan:Ekjpk3818P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Divya Ravindran, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal Directed Against The Order Dated 13.05.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Bangalore [Cit(A)], Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting His Appeal Against Order Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 28.12.2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That The Appeal Is Delayed By 27 Days. As Explained In The Condonation Petition, Submitted Along With, In The Form Of An Affidavit By Shri Tony V.J., The Assessee’S, A Resident Of Canada, Constituted Attorney, The Impugned Order Was Received By The Assessee In Canada Only On 17.6.2022, Whereupon The Power Of Attorney Was Executed & The Papers Sent To India, Entailing Time & Which Led To The Delay In Preparation Of Appeal Papers & Filing Them. The Same Is Found Reasonable & Fairly Not Objected To By Smt. Devi, The Learned Sr. D.R. Hearing In The Matter Was Accordingly Proceeded With.

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 69A

sale of a Rubber estate, purchased by him and his wife in 1994, for Rs.23.70 lakhs. The balance Rs.23.48 lakhs was stated as accrued agricultural income from the said farm (i.e., up to June, 2016), accumulated over the years (brought to India during their visits thereto), as well as borrowing ... balance amount of Rs.25.48 lakhs. The AO had accepted the explanation to the extent of Rs.2 lakh on account of earlier withdrawals and agricultural income. For the balance Rs.23,48,000, the assessee had claimed the amount to have been borrowed from friends. However, the names and addresses of these

Janakkumar Mukundprasad Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Bardoli, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.418/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Janakkumar Mukundprasad Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Patel Bardoli Vs. 57 Omnagar, Tarsadi Kosamba (R.S) Surat-394120 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auzpp 2106 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 05/10/2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short, “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 18.04.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Bardoli, Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’), Dated 02.06.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1.On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) When Assessing Office Had Not Specified In The Notice U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) Whether The Penalty Was Leviable For Concealment Of Particulars Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Thereof. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Office In Levying Penalty Of Rs.3,09,062/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Levied By The Assessing Office & Confirmed By Cit(A) May Please Be Deleted.

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

saving bank account of State Bank of India during the year under consideration. In this regard the assessee had stated that he was earning agricultural income from last many years and he has deposited the said cash from earning from the agricultural activities. On perusal of bank account and cash

Bharatbhai Naginbhai Patel, Ankleshwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Bharuch

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

ITA 393/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.393/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Bharatbhai Nagjibhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 392, Nishal Faliu, Nava Haripura, Ward- 2(4), Sajod, Ankleshwar, Bharuch, Bharuch, Gujarat – 393020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bpppp4227M (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ashutosh P. Nanavaty, Ca Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 16/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

Section 143(3)Section 249(3)

failed to present any evidences and any explanation or information for submission of fact of arising sale proceeds of agricultural produce having nature of agricultural income and therefore exempt. But unfortunately due to various factors adverse to appellant; appellant neither has knowledge of functioning of income-tax department nor accountant ... assessing officer and consequently appellant has failed to attend assessment proceedings as well as presenting any evidence or explanation or information of fact of agriculture income. 3.Appellant came to know of fact of assessment order dated 13/11/2019 only on 07/09/2021 and thereafter appellant approached Chartered Accountant at Surat to file

Ranjita Rangnath Mhatre, Mumbai vs. ITO, 29(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2498/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

information available in the ITB portal. In response to the notice the assessee filed the return of income declaring Rs.8,00,000 as agricultural income and Rs.9,143 as interest income. The assessing officer issued notice under section 142(1) calling on the assessee to furnish bank account details ... notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed the return in which the sum of Rs.8,00,000 was declared as agricultural income. The assessing officer invoked the provisions of section 50C for the reason that the stamp duty value of the asset

Bijender Singh Thakran, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2017/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: The Disposal Of The Appeal.” Ground No. 1 & 2:

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 4Section 44ASection 69A

been filed. No documentary evidence has been filed that this land was used for the agricultural purposes. No details have been filed regarding any agricultural income shown by the appellant. Even return of income, stating agricultural income has not been filed. Hence, by any logic, it can’t be held

Janga Rajasekhara Reddy, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 208/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.208/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-19) Janga Rajasekhara Reddy Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Dr.No.54-18/1-1A Income Tax Flat No.504, Lakshmi Residency Central Circle Prasanthi Nagar, Iti College Road Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Agmpj7948L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18 .10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Cit(A)]-12, Hyderabad Vide Appeal No.10806/2019-20 Dated 30.06.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 26.12.2019 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Ceo Of M/S Yugandhar Housing Private Limited, Had Filed His Return Of Income On 30.08.2018 By Admitting Total Income Of Rs.11,26,240/-. A Search & Seizure Operation

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

received cash of Rs.2,00,000/- from his father Sri J.Veera Reddy and Rs.1,00,000/- from his wife, Smt.J.Amala, the source being their agricultural income. The assessee also furnished confirmation letters from them, but failed to furnish supporting evidences such as bank account statements, pattadar passbooks and sale pattis ... were cultivated and further on perusal of ITR of assessee’s wife, Smt.J.Amala, it was observed by the Ld.CIT(A) that she has shown agricultural income of Rs.3,36,500/- and out of her agricultural income, she sourced an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the assessee. Accordingly the Ld.CIT

Gedda Appa Rao, Undi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhimavaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 183/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam18 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.183/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) Gedda Appa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.2-67, Sitaram Pet Ward-1 Undi Bhimavaram [Pan : Axopg9721M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1053170768(1) Dated 25.05.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 11.12.2017 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual Has Not Filed Any Return Of Income For A.Y.2013-14. The Ao Reopened The Case U/S 147 Of The Act On The Basis Of Information With Respect To Cash Deposit In 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

deposits in the bank account could at best be taken as only receipts from aquaculture after giving allowance from such deposits towards gross agricultural income and the amounts obtained by the Appellant from the sale of plots during the year. 6. The Appellant craves leave to add to modify

Dadi Uma Maheswari Devi, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 127/VIZ/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.127/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2010-11) Dadi Uma Maheswari Devi Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.24-34/2 Ward-3(1) Near Sunshine School Visakhapatnam Azamabad, Gajuwaka Viakhapatnam [Pan : Aecpo1798N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 12.09.2023 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1051219457(1) Dated 24.03.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 30.12.2016 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2010-11. 2

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

dated 22.01.2016. In response to the notice, the assessee filed her return of income on 30.05.2016, admitting income of Rs.2,56,700/- and agricultural income of Rs.3,10,000/-. Thereafter, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued calling for further details. The assessee submitted that ... assessee further submitted that the impugned amount invested towards irrevocable advance for development of site at Pedagantyada was met out of the accumulated savings, agricultural income of the HUF and also amounts from HUF. The assessee enclosed the details of land holdings along with pattadar passbooks, documents and MRO certificate

M/S. Lado Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., Bela (Rangpar), Dist. Morbi vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 72/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

ITAT held that where assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny for reasons that it deposited large cash during demonetization and showed large agricultural income, however AO merely relied on assessee's submissions which included sale bills for agricultural income and claimed that cash deposits were made

Puppala Gopi Krishna, Guntur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satya Sai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from other sources and agricultural income filed his return of income for the AY 2016-17 on 27/03/2017 declaring a total income of Rs. 75,14,450/- including the agricultural income

Parminder Singh, Jind vs. ITO, Ward-2, Bhiwani

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1411/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1411/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Parminder Singh Ito H.No.2748, Urban Estate, Vs. Ward-2, Jind, Haryana. Bhiwani. Pan No.Bckps3874B अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

stated the facts are that the assessee filed his return of income declaring income of Rs.1,68,680/- under income from business and as agricultural income of Rs.46,000/-. The assessment was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 as there were cash deposits of Rs.17 ... business income of Rs.1,68,680/- out of such total turnover of Rs.16,62,200/- is bad in law. The assessee has also declared agricultural income of Rs.46,000/- in AY in question. 6. Ld. Counsel further submits that notice was issued by AO u/s 133(6) to ICICI Bank

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. Hasmukhbhai Ravjibhai Ahir, Surat

In the result, the ground Nos

ITA 298/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.298/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Hasmukhbhai Ravjibhai Ahir, Central Circle-3, U/3, Amrutdhara Apartment, Ghod Dod Surat. Road, Opp. St. Xeviers School, Surat – 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abkpa5575D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Shri Ankur Shah, Ca Respondent By 08/08/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/10/2023

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition to Rs.16,02,000/- made on account of agriculture income simply relying upon the submission of the assessee and without appreciating the facts that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has failed to submit ... circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition to Rs.16,02,000/- made on account of agriculture income claiming that the sums have been received from some ad hoc wholesaler who have not raised any sale bills and the assessee has failed

ACIT, CC- 30, New Delhi vs. J H Jewellers LLP, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 809/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & M.Balaganeshassessment Year: 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-30, New Delhi M/S. J H Jewellers Llp, 13, Sunder Nagar Market, Kasturba Vs. Nagar, South East, Delhi 110003 Pan Aacfj 3285 G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue: Shri Waseem Arshad, Cit(Dr) For Assessee: Shri U.N Marwah, Ca Shri Parveen Goel, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Cit(A)-30, New Delhi Dated 25.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Have Been Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:- 1. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts In Deleting The Rs.11,24,76,000/- Additions Of Rs. 32,50,00,000/- Made U/S 68 Of The It Act 1961. 2. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case Considering That As Per The Balance Sheet Of These Companies As On 31.03.2016, The Said Fund Were Available In The Balance Sheet Of All The Four Companies Under The Head "Cash & Cash Equivalents" As On 31.03.2015 Which Are Now Reflected In Current Investment In I.E. Investment As Capital In The Appellant Firm As On31.03.2016. Further, Relying On The Submission Of The Assessee That The Said Four Companies Introduced Funds In The Ay 2008-09, The Case Of Maharaja Tie Up, Dynamic Enclave & Shivshakti Commercial Pt Ltd Were Assessed W/S 147 Of The Act For A.Y. 2008-09 Accepting The Share Capital/Share Premium.

For Appellant: Shri U.N Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)

Section 68

case of Kesharwani Sheetalaya Sahsaonv VsCIT|2020] 116 taxmann.com 382 (Allahabad), that "In the case at hand, the partners have shown the agricultural income in their personal returns of the past years which had been accepted by the department as such. The partners are all identifiable and separately assessed ... credits of certain amount from its partners, since partners of assessee were all identifiable and separately assessed to tax and they had shown sufficient agricultural income in their personal returns of past years which had been accepted by department as such, source of investment, as capital contribution by those partners

Randebhai Arjanbhai Modhvadiya, Porbandar vs. Income Tax Officer, Porbandar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 165/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. J. Boricha, Sr. DR

Section 69A

Officer asked the assessee to explain the source of the aforesaid cash deposit. The assessee submitted that the source of this cash deposit was agricultural income of the assessee for the year under consideration, amount received from his wife and also earlier year’s agricultural income, which were the savings ... assessee, the AO estimated Rs. 5,00,000/- as the assessee’s saving from past year and estimated Rs. 2,00,000/- as the agricultural income of the assessee for the current and brought to tax the balance amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- as unexplained money of the assessee

Shri Chhitubhi Jagubhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 224/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.224/Srt/2023 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Chhitubhai Jagubhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward- Kanbi Faliya, At & Po Kholwad, 1(2)(1), Surat, Aaykar Vs Taluka, Kamrej, Surat-394109 Bhavan, Room No.121, 1St Pan No. Brlpp 7388 D Floor, Nr. Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat- 395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)Section 254(1)Section 50C

detailed statement of facts and written submission. The assessee in his statement of fact submitted that assessee is a purely agriculturist and having earned agricultural income only. The assessee has sold agricultural land at Revenue Survey No.272, Block No.315, Moje Kholwad, Taluka Kamrej, District Surat. The population of village

M/S. Sofitra Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 1749/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

This amount was received as share application money for issue of share capital in the company. She is a NRI and had agricultural income which is not taxable in India. When the Board of Directors rejected the offer for purchase of shares of the company, then the share application money