“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

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

ITA 1748/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

ITO, Ward, Phalodi vs. M/S Rama Allure LLP, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 135/JODH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: The Date, The Appeal Is Finally Heard.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

KESHARWANI SHEETALAYA vs. CIT (2020) 315 CTR (All) 815 Income—Cash credit—Capital introduced by partners in the firm—Partners have shown the agricultural income in their personal returns of the past years which had been accepted by the Department as such—Partners are all identifiable and separately assessed

M/S C.K. Construction & Co., Samastipur vs. ACIT, Darbhanga

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 147/PAT/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

income. He is one of the partners in the firm himself. There cannot be any unexplained contribution from a partner who is having agricultural income. There is no justification at the end of the ld. Assessing Officer to make an addition of Rs.1,55,000/- because out of the total

Vishal Naryariya, Indore vs. The ITO 5 (1), Indore

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

ITA 40/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivishal Narvariya Ito 5(1) Near Bcm City Navlakha Square Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Azfpn8038D Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2023

Section 144Section 69A

assessee. She has contended that the assessee is operating SBI KIOSK and also having past saving from the business income as well as agricultural income. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the AO for want of the supporting evidence. Therefore, the assessee now wants ... accepted by the AO. The assessee has explained the source of the deposit as the business of running KIOSK center as well as the agricultural income of the assesse and past savings. Since the assesse has not produced any supporting evidence either before the AO or before

Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 35(4), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 5897/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 143(3)

case and the provisions of law, the Ld CIT (A)has erred in sustaining an addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- on account of agricultural income by treating the same as income from undisclosed sources. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions ... account of Gift received in Cash from Father, Shri. Phool Chand Yadav.” 3. In this case, the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs.15 Lakhs for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee for the details of agricultural income. The assessee filed a copy of Khasra, Khatoni

V D Devasia, Kottayam vs. ACIT, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 50/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

land by Smt. Mercy : Rs.26.66 lakhs Kurian (wife) b) Sale of 8.82 acres of land by Shri Sunny : Rs.26.54 lakhs Kutty Thomas c) Agricultural income (Rs.40.14 lakhs – less : Rs.22.64 lakhs agricultural expenses Rs. 17.50 lakhs) d) Sale of 1.74 acres of land : Rs.16.82 lakhs The same did not find acceptance ... flow statement. Similarly, his land holding, after the sale in December, 2010, is at a mere 4.33 acres, which could not explain the huge agricultural income claimed by the assessee, viz. at Rs.102.94 lakhs for AY 2012-13, being in fact not disclosed per the original returns. The assessee

V D Devasia, Kottayam vs. ACIT, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 49/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

V D Devasia, Kottayam vs. ACIT, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 48/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

Chengazhasseril Thomas Kurian, Kottayam vs. ACIT Central Circle Kottayam, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 474/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

Chengazhasseril Thomas Kurian, Kottayam vs. ACIT Central Circle Kottayam, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 473/COCH/2022[ 2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

Chengazhasseril Thomas Kurian, Kottayam vs. ACIT Central Circle Kottayam, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 472/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

V D Devasia, Kottayam vs. ACIT, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 47/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

Shri Chandubhai Ramjibhai Kaqthiriya, Jasdan, Dist. Rajkot-364490 vs. The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 168/RJT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Us Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Addition Of Rs. 14,32,782/- Being 50 Percent Of Agricultural Income Treating As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S. 68 Of The Income Tax Act In The Absence Of Books Of Accounts.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

solitary issue before us is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding addition of Rs. 14,32,782/- being 50 percent of agricultural income treating as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act in the absence of books of accounts. 3. The brief facts ... individual and agriculturist by profession filed his Return of Income on 26-07-2017 declaring the total income as Rs. 340/- and agricultural income of Rs. 28,65,563/-. The assessee case was selected for scrutiny assessment since the assessee shown large agricultural income and the assessee was requested

Suresh M. Bhathija (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2561/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhbhathija Suresh M (Huf) Vs. Income Tax Officer 120 Dakshinpali, D Monte 23(3)(1), Mumbai Park Road Pali Hill Mumbai 400050 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaahs 8289 M Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Ms. Rutuja N Pawar& Ms. Sneha More Respondent By : Shri Yogendra T Wakare Date Of Hearing 31.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15.09.2022 For A.Y. 2006-07. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Cit(Appeals) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer In Bringing To Tax An Amount Of Rs. 90,92,165/- As Long Term Capital Gains On Sale Of Land. 2. The Learned Cit(Appeals) & The Learned Assessing Officer Failed To Appreciate That The Said Land Was An Agricultural Land & Was Not A Capital Asset. 3. Without Prejudice To The Above Grounds Of Appeal, The Learned Cit(Appeals) & The Learned Assessing Officer Were Not Justified In Disallowing The Claim For Expenses Of Rs. 69,00,000/- While Computing The Long Term Capital Gains.

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja N Pawar&For Respondent: Shri Yogendra T Wakare

Section 143(2)Section 50C

this opportunity was never availed by the appellant. The A.O. has also placed reliance upon the fact that assessee had never disclosed any agricultural income in the Return of Income confirming that as a matter of fact no agriculture was carried out on the land. The statement of Karta ... appellant itself has mentioned nature of the land as non- agricultural in the relevant sale agreement. Further, the appellant has not shown any agricultural income in the return filed for the earlier years. Book profit of the sale also has not been credited to the capital account. Thus, the evidence

ITO, Ward-2(2)(3), Surat vs. Maheshchand G. Patel (HUF), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 20/SRT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) I.T.O., Maheshchandra G. Patel (Huf), Ward-2(2)(3), 22, Vrajbhumi, Tirumala Society, In Vs. Surat. Front Of Balaji Nagar, Piplod, Surat. Pan No. Aajhm 2315 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 292C

Magdalla, Surat. In response to such notice, the assessee filed reply dated 24/02/2015. In reply, the assessee submitted that he is agriculturists and having agricultural income which is exempt under the provisions of Income Tax Act. He has not filed return of income for previous year. With regard to sale

Gillette India Limited, Spa-65A, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, District- Alwar vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 313/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. ParwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194Section 195Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

A3Logics (India) Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40a

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

Yogendra Kumar Sharma, Faridabad vs. JCIT, Range-61, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 801/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member)

Section 148

response to notice u/s 148 of the Act the assessee did file return of income, wherein the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs.70,700/- which was accrued to him in cash and the AO in paragraph no.3.1 noted that the AR vide submission dated 26.11.2018 furnished copy of land ... submitted that when the assessee has shown documentary evidence showing ownership of agricultural land then the small amount of Rs.70,700/- exempt of agricultural income which has been shown by the assessee in his return of income should not be disputed. 6. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the assessee

Anshul Goyal, Chhindwara vs. ITO-1, Chhindwara

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

ITA 95/JAB/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleanshul Goyal, Vs Ito-1, Near New Jain Temple Chhindwara. Behind Collectorate, Chhindwara, M.P-480001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aippg0688M Assessee By Shri Rahul Bardia, Ca Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

case are that the assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 28.03.2014, declaring total income of Rs.6,24,526/- and agricultural income of Rs.1,14,800/-. The return of income was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued and complied with. During the course

Ashwani Kumar Sehgal, Katni vs. Income Tax Officer, Katni

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

ITA 46/JAB/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleashwani Kumar Sehgal Vs. Ito-1. M/S. Sehgal Industries, Katni-483501, Madhav Nagar Gate, Madhyapradesh. Katni-483501, Madhyapradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Ajgps0132E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Sapanusrethe, Advocate.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Shivkumar. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.09.2023 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) Delhi /Cit(A) A Passed U/Sec 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri.SapanUsrethe, Advocate.ARFor Respondent: Shri.ShivKumar. Sr. DR

Section 154

filed the return of income for the A.Y 2010-11 on 12.10.2010 disclosing a total income of Rs. 9,03,130/- and the agricultural income of Rs.95,000/-. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed U/sec143(3)of the Act dated