“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

Sampat Lal Lodha, Nathdwara vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rajsamand

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1/JODH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

necessarily be income of the assessee. The amount deposited in the bank account may be out of sale proceeds of investments, property or agricultural income of the assessee which may be exempted under the Income Tax Act. Of course, it may be desirable, from the point of view of revenue

Ajay Bhargava HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 224/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A)For Respondent: Ms. MonishaChoudhary (Addl.CIT)

action of the AO in making addition of Rs.17,00,246/- to the income of the assessee without considering the same to be agriculture income earned by the assessee during the year under consideration. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and 2 ITA NP. 224/JP/2023 ... stated herein. During the course of assessment proceedings, it is noticed that during the year under consideration the assessee HUF has declared abnormal agriculture income of Rs. 27,00,246/- as compared to NIL Agriculture Income in the earlier years. Further, the assessee sold Agriculture Land on 30.07.2013. However

Allied Photographics India Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1083/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S Alliedphotographics Vs. Pr.Cit-1, India Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Room No.330, Kasturi Buildings, 3Rd Floor, Jamshedji Tata Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, M.K. Road, Mumbai -400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. : Aabca2068A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitish Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Smiti Samant. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-1, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Nitish Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Smiti Samant. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263

sale situated at Village Sajari, Kanpur is agricultural land and the gains made on sale of such land is exempt from tax, it being agricultural income exempt u/s 10(i) of Income Tax Act, 1961. V. The Learned PCIT failed to provide the google map to establish that the impugned ... Rs.1,24,34,060/-.Subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under the E assessment Scheme 2019 on the issue of Agricultural income. Further the Assessing Officer (AO) has issued the notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire. In compliance

Ranbir, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-5, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 678/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Swati Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 69A

facts in confirming the additions made by Ld. AO under Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE amounting to INR 8,50,000 by considering agricultural income as unexplained cash deposit. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming Ld. AO's order making additions under ... Opening Balance as on 01.04.2016 1,99,832 Add: Cash Withdrawal from Bank 10,01,000 Add: Milk Sale 2,88,695 Add: Agriculture Income 1,20,000 Less: Expenses incl. Chara Exp., Household 4,98,252 Expt., Conveyance, Drawing etc. Closing Balance

The Maestro Multi State Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited, Delhi vs. Ward-34(5), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed on merits

ITA 585/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Maestro Multi State Vs. Pcit, Cooperative Group Housing Delhi-12, Society Ltd, D-24, Green View Apartments, Sector-9, Rohini, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabat7650F Assessee By : Sh. Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Sarita Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 25/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumar, CIT DR

Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)

claimed by the appellant against the interest income received from deposit with Delhi Cooperative Bank and also exemption against agricultural income and other income. The ld counsel of assessee further drawing our attention to relevant assessment order submitted that the AO has rightly appreciated the factual matrix

Shri Satish Munde, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Nagpur

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

ITA 1/NAG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.01/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Satish Munde, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Nagpur. G-1, Ashraya Gulab Palace, 22B, Farmland, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur- 440010. Pan : Acupm6198B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Smt. Rashmi Mathur Date Of Hearing : 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 16.10.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Food Grains Carrying Under The Name & Style Of M/S. Balaji Enterprises. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Was Filed On 30.09.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,07,51,400/-. Apart From This, The Assessee Also Declared Agricultural Income Of Rs.18,09,705/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur

Section 143(3)

assessment year 2013-14 was filed on 30.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.1,07,51,400/-. Apart from this, the assessee also declared agricultural income of Rs.18,09,705/-. 2 Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur ... total income of Rs.1,31,84,518/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.18,09,705/- out of agricultural income disbelieving the claim of the assessee that it is an agricultural income, as the assessee had failed to file the details of the expenditure incurred on agricultural

Koyya Ganga Venkata Satya Bhaskar Rao, East Godavari Dist vs. Income Tax Oficer, Ward-1, Tuni

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 146/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.145/Viz/2023 & 146/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Koyya Ganga Venkata Satya Vs. Income Tax Officer Bhaskar Rao Ward-1 A.V.Nagaram Tuni East Godavari Dist. [Pan : Bespk1580A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 44A

total income of Rs.5,06,030/-, transportation charges of Rs.4,96,177/- received from A.P.Civil Supplies for transportation of paddy, which was addmitted as agricultural income by mistake. The return was processed by the CPC and the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was issued on 05.09.2018, wherein ... agricultural income was disallowed and addition was made under the head “income from other sources” and the total income was determined at Rs.10,02,210/-. The assessee noticed that there was a mistake crept in admitting the transportation charges as agricultural income, therefore, filed a petition for rectification

Koyya Ganga Venkata Satya Bhaskar Rao, East Godavari Dist vs. Income Tax Oficer, Ward-1, Tuni

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 145/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 44A

Ramesh Babu Bandi, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.140/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ramesh Babu Bandi Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.52-1/5-1 Ward-2(3) Flat Tf-1, Lakshmi Narayan Enclave Vijayawada Veterinary Colony Gunadala [Pan : Akppb0435R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 144Section 69A

Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The learned Assessing Officer had ignored the fact that the appellant is a farmer earning agricultural income and has no other source of income liable to tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer arbitrarily made ... Ld.AR that the assessee is a farmer, having 12.91 acres of agricultural land, doing agriculture for the past 20 years and is having only agricultural income. The assessee is also having gold loan and is in the habit of taking loans from others also. The Ld.AR further contended taht