← 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

Rajvinder Kaur Balraj Singh Mahal, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

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

ITA 352/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalerajvinder Kaur Balraj Vs. Cit(A), Singh Mahal, Nfac, Groundno.6,Chawlno.82, New Delhi. Room No.19,79, Tagornagar,Vikhroli(E), Mumbai-400083. Pan/Gir No. : Ciqpm2579G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr Chintanshah & Mr.Hardikvora. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Rajendra Chandekar.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr ChintanShah &For Respondent: Mr.Rajendra Chandekar.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

documents. Ground No. 5 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming that the Ld. A.O did not consider that Rs. 3,00,000/- was agricultural income of last three years (AY 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11). Also, CIT (A) erred in confirming that the Ld. A.O did not consider

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)., Visakhapatnam vs. Varun Ogili, Nellore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 137/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.137/Viz/2021("नधा"रणवष"/Asst. Year:2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Varun Ogili, Tax (International Taxation), Nellore. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aakpo 5012 C C.O. No. 4/Viz/2022 (Inआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.137/Viz/2021) ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2017-18) Sri Varun Ogili, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Nellore. Income Tax (International Pan: Aakpo 5012 C Taxation), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Sunil Vamsi Krishna Kota ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 04/05/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri Sunil Vamsi Krishna KotaFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessee. On examining the details furnished by the assessee, the Ld. AO completed the assessment by making the following additions: 1 Disallowance of Agricultural income Rs. 6,55,000 2 Suppression of interest income Rs. 36,90,643 3 Unexplained cash deposit by peak credit ... appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted evidences with respect to the land holdings on which agricultural income was 5 derived by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AR also argued before the Ld. CIT(A) that the interest on the outstanding balances

Dharampal Singh, Neemkathana vs. ITO, Neemkathana

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

ITA 124/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Final Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Shekhawat (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143Section 148

without number and date. 2- It is hardly believable that a father and or brother would give the cash out of their agricultural income to his son or brother without any proper object. If they would give, they would ask him to utilize the amount for particular purpose. 4 Dharampal

Late Shri Joginder Singh, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Moga

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for

ITA 50/ASR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 250(6)Section 69

explained the source of Rs. 27,00,000/- which was accrued to him from sale of agricultural land and Rs. 1,40,400/- from agricultural income and failed to explain the source of remaining amount i.e. 48,59,600/-. Hence, the Assessing Officer made the addition ... deposit in his bank account as receipt of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of past saving and Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of agriculture income, as a source of cash deposit. At the time of the remand proceedings, the assessing officer has stated, that the appellant can only

Amar Singh, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rewari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 115/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 54BSection 54F

Submissions 3. It is humbly submitted that Agricultural Land was always outside the purview of central legislation which includes Income Tax Act and so agricultural income was never included as taxable under Income Tax Act. Central Government on account of urbanization found that nature of agricultural land has been changed

Pilli Nooka Raju, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, . Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessees for the A

ITA 99/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.101/Viz/2019 To 103/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2010-11) Smt.Pilli Sujatha Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Income Tax Narasimha Nagar Central Circle-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ajopp0031F] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.98/Viz/2019 To 100/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2013-14) Pilli Nooka Raju Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Income Tax Narasimha Nagar Central Circle-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahipp 3381L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.MurthyNaik,CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam A.Y.2008-09 on 19.02.2014 admitting income of Rs.1,44,300/- apart from agricultural income of Rs.6,25,000/-. The AO during the assessment proceedings rejected the agricultural income admitted by the assessee in the absence of any documentary ... proof / evidence. The AO completed the assessment proceedings and passed an order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act on 30.03.2014, rejecting the agricultural income admitted by the assessee. 25. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT

Pilli Nooka Raju, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, . Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessees for the A

ITA 98/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.101/Viz/2019 To 103/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2010-11) Smt.Pilli Sujatha Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Income Tax Narasimha Nagar Central Circle-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ajopp0031F] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.98/Viz/2019 To 100/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2013-14) Pilli Nooka Raju Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Income Tax Narasimha Nagar Central Circle-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahipp 3381L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.MurthyNaik,CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam A.Y.2008-09 on 19.02.2014 admitting income of Rs.1,44,300/- apart from agricultural income of Rs.6,25,000/-. The AO during the assessment proceedings rejected the agricultural income admitted by the assessee in the absence of any documentary ... proof / evidence. The AO completed the assessment proceedings and passed an order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act on 30.03.2014, rejecting the agricultural income admitted by the assessee. 25. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT

Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessees for the A

ITA 103/VIZ/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.101/Viz/2019 To 103/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2010-11) Smt.Pilli Sujatha Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Income Tax Narasimha Nagar Central Circle-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ajopp0031F] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.98/Viz/2019 To 100/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2013-14) Pilli Nooka Raju Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Income Tax Narasimha Nagar Central Circle-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahipp 3381L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.MurthyNaik,CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam A.Y.2008-09 on 19.02.2014 admitting income of Rs.1,44,300/- apart from agricultural income of Rs.6,25,000/-. The AO during the assessment proceedings rejected the agricultural income admitted by the assessee in the absence of any documentary ... proof / evidence. The AO completed the assessment proceedings and passed an order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act on 30.03.2014, rejecting the agricultural income admitted by the assessee. 25. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT

Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessees for the A

ITA 102/VIZ/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.101/Viz/2019 To 103/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2010-11) Smt.Pilli Sujatha Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Income Tax Narasimha Nagar Central Circle-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ajopp0031F] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.98/Viz/2019 To 100/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2013-14) Pilli Nooka Raju Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Income Tax Narasimha Nagar Central Circle-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahipp 3381L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.MurthyNaik,CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam A.Y.2008-09 on 19.02.2014 admitting income of Rs.1,44,300/- apart from agricultural income of Rs.6,25,000/-. The AO during the assessment proceedings rejected the agricultural income admitted by the assessee in the absence of any documentary ... proof / evidence. The AO completed the assessment proceedings and passed an order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act on 30.03.2014, rejecting the agricultural income admitted by the assessee. 25. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT

Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessees for the A

ITA 101/VIZ/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.101/Viz/2019 To 103/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2010-11) Smt.Pilli Sujatha Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Income Tax Narasimha Nagar Central Circle-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ajopp0031F] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.98/Viz/2019 To 100/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2013-14) Pilli Nooka Raju Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Income Tax Narasimha Nagar Central Circle-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahipp 3381L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.MurthyNaik,CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam A.Y.2008-09 on 19.02.2014 admitting income of Rs.1,44,300/- apart from agricultural income of Rs.6,25,000/-. The AO during the assessment proceedings rejected the agricultural income admitted by the assessee in the absence of any documentary ... proof / evidence. The AO completed the assessment proceedings and passed an order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act on 30.03.2014, rejecting the agricultural income admitted by the assessee. 25. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT

Pilli Nooka Raju, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, . Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessees for the A

ITA 100/VIZ/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.101/Viz/2019 To 103/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2010-11) Smt.Pilli Sujatha Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Income Tax Narasimha Nagar Central Circle-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ajopp0031F] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.98/Viz/2019 To 100/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2013-14) Pilli Nooka Raju Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Income Tax Narasimha Nagar Central Circle-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahipp 3381L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.MurthyNaik,CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam A.Y.2008-09 on 19.02.2014 admitting income of Rs.1,44,300/- apart from agricultural income of Rs.6,25,000/-. The AO during the assessment proceedings rejected the agricultural income admitted by the assessee in the absence of any documentary ... proof / evidence. The AO completed the assessment proceedings and passed an order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act on 30.03.2014, rejecting the agricultural income admitted by the assessee. 25. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT

DCIT, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Satish Jagannath Aggarwal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2818/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Krishna Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 158B

tribunal has found that with regard to cash and jewellery, the explanation of the assessee was that he had agricultural properties and derived agricultural income. That income was utilised to acquire jewellery that was belonging to him and his family. With regard to cash and stated to be recovered from

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 1953/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

dividend is included in ‘income’ and is thus covered by Entry 82 of List I to Seventh Schedule, “taxes on income, other than agricultural income” in the legislative competence of the Parliament. It deals with the constitutionality, not the interpretation, of Section 115 ‘O’. It does not overrule, or even

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 1952/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

dividend is included in ‘income’ and is thus covered by Entry 82 of List I to Seventh Schedule, “taxes on income, other than agricultural income” in the legislative competence of the Parliament. It deals with the constitutionality, not the interpretation, of Section 115 ‘O’. It does not overrule, or even

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 521/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

dividend is included in ‘income’ and is thus covered by Entry 82 of List I to Seventh Schedule, “taxes on income, other than agricultural income” in the legislative competence of the Parliament. It deals with the constitutionality, not the interpretation, of Section 115 ‘O’. It does not overrule, or even

Maruti Suzuki India Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Spl. Range-6, New Delhi

ITA 8968/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

dividend is included in ‘income’ and is thus covered by Entry 82 of List I to Seventh Schedule, “taxes on income, other than agricultural income” in the legislative competence of the Parliament. It deals with the constitutionality, not the interpretation, of Section 115 ‘O’. It does not overrule, or even

Chandra Prabha, Ghaziabad vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1347/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Santanu Kanungo, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 263Section 50CSection 55ASection 64

further noted that the fact was confronted to the assessee and the husband of the assessee, Shri Pramod Kumar Goel agreed for inclusion of agricultural income in his hand in terms of Section 64 of the Act. The Assessing Officer accepted the return income with such remarks. 5. Subsequent

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 8009/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

dividend is included in ‘income’ and is thus covered by Entry 82 of List I to Seventh Schedule, “taxes on income, other than agricultural income” in the legislative competence of the Parliament. It deals with the constitutionality, not the interpretation, of Section 115 ‘O’. It does not overrule, or even

Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel HUF, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 60/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel I.T.O.,Ward 1(2)(1), Huf,6, Siddharth Society, Surat. Vs. Behind Afil Tower, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat-395010. Pan: Aakhp 0725 K Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54B

served upon the assessee for seeking certain information about short term/long term capital gain and agricultural income and accepted the returned income in assessment order dated 13/12/2018 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The 2 Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel HUF Vs ITO assessment order was revised ... expenses etc. Complete name, address, PAN to whom the agricultural produce were sold in F.Y. 2013- 14 to 2015-16, justification of claim of agriculture income with cogent and sufficient evidence with Hak Patra, Form-6, sales of bills of 7 Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel HUF Vs ITO agriculture product

M/S Gca Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Bathinda vs. A.C.I.T, Circle-1, Bathinda

ITA 287/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)

received by the company from the investor. The assessee claims that the assessee is an agriculturist, and all the income are generated from the agricultural income. The assessee received the share capital but due to lack of verification the share capital, the share premium and current liability and provisions ... assessee filed an appeal before us. 5. The ld. CIT DR submitted that the assessee is not holding any agricultural property but credited the agricultural income in the books of account. Also, the share capital and share premium and current liabilities are remained unexplained and unverified before