“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

Shri Anil Bhikhubhai Vartaria, Jamnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 255/RJT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

made addition of Rs. 11,53,674/- u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, the A.O. also made one more addition of excess agricultural income and determined the total income and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before

Shri Mahesh Bhikhubhai Varotaria, Jamnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (1), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 253/RJT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

Sh. Suresh Kumar Sharma S/O. Sh. Rakha Ram, Kotkapura vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3), Faridkot

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 111/ASR/2019[2011-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2011-11

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

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 271Section 44ASection 80C

dates out of the opening balance of cash, business income of past years and of current assessment year, of sale of animal shed and agricultural income. If we give credit of various incomes of past years as well as of current assessment year, then no addition is called

Sh.Suresh Kumar Sharma.S/O Sh. Rakha Ram, Kotkapura vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3 (3), Faidkot

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 110/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 271Section 44ASection 80C

Anand Jhawar, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 156/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma, CIT &

Section 12ASection 138Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 263

said cash deposits of the assessee and adopting a divergent view where two views are possible that too on the issues of agricultural income and unsecured loans, which were not even parameters of selection of the case for scrutiny under CASS. The case laws relied upon by the ld. PCIT ... happened during the course of present assessment proceedings. Therefore, the issue of valuation of closing work-in-progress as well as matter relating to agriculture income, which are held by the ld PCIT as matters not been examined by the AO, are matters which are not part of the reasons

Arun Kumar Palawat, Jaipur vs. Pr CIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 144/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Bhatra (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT D/R

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Trib Revision—Order erroneous or prejudicial to revenue—Over exercise of power—Assessee an individual filed his return declaring income and agricultural income—Case was selected for limited scrutiny for reason that there was a substantial increase in capital during year relevant to assessment year under consideration—AO accepted return ... assessment order and accepted return filed by assessee after examining issue regarding increase in capital account as assessee had credited his capital account with agricultural income and capital gain from sale of flat—Assessee has reflected that same in its capital account—Further in response to letter issued

Vanga Jain Babu, Devarapalli vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tadepalligudem

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/VIZ/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for the AY 2015-16 admitting a total income of Rs.3,69,300/- and agricultural income of Rs. 1,25,000/-, on 01/03/2016. The assessee is running a business / trade in “Cashew Nuts” in the name and style of “Maranatha Cashew

The ITO 2 (2), Bhopal vs. Shri Munshiram Balkishan Verma, Bhopal

ITA 9/IND/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

Section 147Section 148Section 27(1)(c)Section 54B

issuing a notice dated 25.03.2015 u/s 148. In response, the assessee filed return declaring a taxable income of Rs. 78,441/- and agricultural income of Rs. 50,000/-. In the return so filed, the assessee also declared long-term capital gain of Rs. 3,29,84,651/- arising from transfer

The ITO 2 (2), Bhopal vs. Shri Munshiram Balkishan Verma, Bhopal

ITA 8/IND/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

Section 147Section 148Section 27(1)(c)Section 54B

Shri M A Khan, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

ITA 105/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) It(Ss)A Nos.37 To 42/Ind/2015 & Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2010-11 Late M.A. Khan Acit 3(1) (Through L/H Nazhat Bhopal Parveen Khan) बनाम/ B-90, Housing Board, Vs. Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan:Aewpk 3620 C Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Shri Vijay Bansal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)

No.37 to 42/Ind/2015 & ITANo.105/Ind/2015 Assessment year 2004-05 to 2010-11 Para No. 1 and 4 to the effect that she has agricultural income for last 25 years and also rental income. It is further on record that the regular assessment of Smt. Nadira Baig was made ... vide order dated 30.12.2011 (Paper Book Page No. 187 to 190) wherein agricultural income of Rs. 3,30,000/- and rental income of Rs. 1,17,600/- earned by Nadira Baig was duly scrutinized and accepted by AO himself. Therefore, the financial capacity of Smt. Nadira Baig is undoubtedly accepted

Sureshbhai Sukhabhai Mistry, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward 5, Navasari

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

ITA 263/SRT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.263/Srt/2022 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Sureshbhai Sukhabhai Mistry Income Tax Officer, 130, Kumbhar Faliya, Via Ward-5, Navsari Vs Satem, Tal: Navsari, Dist. Navsari-396466 Pan No: Ammpm 4411 H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sujesh C Suratwala, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 30.01.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 31.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 05.05.2022 For Assessment Year 2011-12, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 13.09.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- Suresshbhai S Mistry “1. The Learned Ao As Well As Learned Nfac/Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Addition To The Total Income Of The Assessee Which Is Primarily Agriculture Inn Nature & In Fact Exempted To Tax

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

Rs.7,60,000/- from them” contrary to that during the course of appeal proceedings the appellant has submitted all substantial evidence pertaining to the agriculture income as well as borrowers’ details including KYC and credit worthiness before the NFAC/CIT(A). 3. The learned AO has while passing order ... cultivated by assessee and sold 4 Suresshbhai S Mistry agricultural produce of sugarcane, which was sold to Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli, Gandevi. Apart from agricultural income, assessee is owner of truck, having registration No. GJ-21-T-2862 and said truck was exclusively used for carting sugarcane from the farmers

Shri Javaid Iqbal Tara, Sapore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(5), Baramula

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 285/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR

grounds of appeal.” 3. None appeared for the appellant nor any adjournment application filed on record. Considering the minor issue of excess claim of agricultural income of Rs.1,96,591/-, it is decided to hear the Ld. DR and dispose the appeal on merits. The assessee is working ... Gross Total income of Rs. 12,61,928 /- in his return of income. After reducing the salary income of Rs. 6,40,337 and agricultural income of Rs.4,25,000/, there still remained income of Rs. 1,96,591/- which was assessed as Income from other sources. 3 Javaid Iqbal

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed for the A

ITA 96/VIZ/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.96/Viz/2019 & 97/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13) Pilli Raja Raghavendra Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Central Circle-2 Narasimha Nagar Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Bpfpp8326B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 29.03.2023 : Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

I.T.A. No.96-97/Viz/2019, A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 PilliRaja Raghavendra., Visakhapatnam income for the A.Y.2010-11 on 18.02.2014 admitting total income of Rs.1,88,630/- and agricultural income of Rs.5,50,000/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer(AO) had rejected the agricultural income admitted by the assessee at Rs.5 ... assessment proceedings and passed an order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C, by adding back Rs.1,80,400/- to the income returned and treating the agricultural income as Nil. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal

George Kochuparambil, Prop. United Granites & Metals, Thodupuzha vs. Central Circle, Kochi

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

ITA 190/COCH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Juduicial Member & Ms. Padmavathy Sshri George Kochuparambil Kochuparambil House Dcit/Acit, Central Vazhithala P.O. Vs. Circle Thodupuzha Kochi Idukki 685583 Pan – Afjpk9650E Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Respondent By: Shri M. Jarasekhar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.03.2023

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Jarasekhar, CIT-DR

Section 135Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

assessee is an individual and filed his original return of income on 25.01.2018 declaring total income of Rs.4,12,82,340/- and a net agricultural income of Rs.9,24,880/-. The case was selected for scrutiny for the following reasons: - (i) Large agricultural income shown in the ITR and large ... passed the assessment order after making addition to the total income which amounted to Rs.4,63,68,773/-. The AO also reduced the net agricultural income to Rs.3,00,000/- vide order dated 30.12.2019. 3.2 The learned PCIT thereafter issued notice under Section 263 of the Act for the reason

Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya, Surat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.15 & Ita No.619/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 &2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, B/1-2, Jalaram Society, B/H. Central Circle-2, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Gurunagar Society, Varachha Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 5116 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin K Parekh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B.Koli, CIT-DR &

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 45(3)Section 54F

therefore such a farmer should not be treated as businessman. In the return of income filed by the assessee, the assessee has been showing agricultural income. That is, the assessee had not indulged in the activity of either construction or dealing in plots or land. From assessment years

DCIT, Corporate Circle- 1(1), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 359/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.34 & 35/Ctk/2019 2019 Assessment Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014 14 & 2014-15 M/S. Grid Corporation Of M/S. Grid Corporation Of Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(1), Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Janpath, Bhubaneswar Janpath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain & Shri Venugopal Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

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

DCIT, Corporate Circle- 1(1), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 358/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain & Shri Venugopal Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

M/S. Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubanswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 35/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain & Shri Venugopal Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

M/S. Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubanswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 34/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain & Shri Venugopal Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

M/S. Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubanswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 325/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain & Shri Venugopal Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40