“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

Vashram Savabhai Sindhav, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(5), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 119/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 133Section 250Section 69

merits, the facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee has shown income from job work of silver and agricultural income. During the year, the assessee had purchased a piece of agricultural land at Kuvada for an amount of " 1,16,86,000/- along with ... source of investment. The Ld. Assessing Officer observed from the records that in the immediately preceding assessment year 2012-13, the assessee has shown agricultural income of " 2.80 lakhs only whereas during the impugned assessment year 2013-14, the assessee has shown agricultural income of 20.04 lakhs, which

Savitaben Arjanbhai Sindhav, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(5), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 446/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 133Section 250Section 69

merits, the facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee has shown income from job work of silver and agricultural income. During the year, the assessee had purchased a piece of agricultural land at Kuvada for an amount of " 1,16,86,000/- along with ... I.T.A No. 446/Rjt/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 3 Savitaben Arjanbhai Sindhav vs. ITO land in financial year 2011-12, the assessee has shown agricultural income of " 1.58 lakhs. Further, during the impugned assessment year, the assessee has shown agricultural income of " 25.93 lakhs which is very intriguing

Bhartiben Vashrambhai Sindhav, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 445/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69

merits, the facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee has shown income from job work and agricultural income. During the year, the assessee had purchased a piece of agricultural land at Kuvada for an amount of " 1,16,86,000/- along with Shri Vashrambhai ... hectares of land and no return of income was filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 and therefore the sudden jump in agricultural income to " 37.99 lakhs during the year under consideration was intriguing. To verify the genuineness of the transaction, the AO issued notice under section

Bhupendra Maganlal Naik (HUF), Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer Ward No. 1, Navsari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 220/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am (Physical Hearing) Bhupendra Maganlal Naik (Huf), The Ito, Ward No.1, 29/B, Manglam Bunglow, Navsari. Vs Alka Society, Chhapra Road, Navsari, Gujarat – 396445. Pan : Aaghd1504E Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

cases are that the assessee while filing return of income for AY 2014-15 declared income of Rs.6,71,990/-. The Assesse also included agricultural income of Rs.23,60,030/-, thus declared total income of Rs.30,32,018/-. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order under section ... total agriculture income of Rs. 23,60,030/- treated Rs.17,78,030/- as non-agricultural and agricultural income was reduced by such figure. On appeal before Ld. Ld. CIT(A) considered the Rs.5,28,030/- as non-agricultural income and remaining one was allowed as agricultural income. The Assessing Officer

Manish, Hisar vs. ITO Ward - 2, Hisar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1896/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: 19.10.2018 & The Same Could Be Filed Only On 24.11.2020

Section 5

Tehsil Narnaul, Distt. Hisar. The Ld. AR further submitted that his annual income from puja, astrology and property dealer was Rs.1,40,000/- and agricultural income of Rs. 2 lakhs totaling to Rs.3,40,000/- during FY 2008-09. The Ld. AR further submitted that the father of assessee gifted ... para 6 noted that the assessee has not been able to convinced the AO regarding income from agriculture and agriculture income calculated by the assessee are based on presumptions only. The second cause mentioned by the Ld.CIT(A) is that the appellant father should have filed his return of income

Nitaben Kiritbhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO Ward-2(2)(5), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 243/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Nitaben Kiritbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)((5), At & Post: Ariyana, Sadak Mohallo, Surat. Tal: Olpad, Surat – 395005. Pan : Bjqpp0429N Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 44A

milk, which was received in cash. The reply of assessee was not accepted by Assessing Officer by holding that no 3 Nitaben Kiritbhai Patel agricultural income is offered in the return of income. The major portions of deposits were from withdrawal from savings bank account and that assessee could ... order of authorities below carefully. I find that Assessing Officer made addition under section 69A of Rs.11,00,000/- by taking view that no agricultural income has been offered in the return of income. The assessee could not prove correlation of cash withdrawal and cash deposit. The theory of opening

Chalumuru Venkata Rao, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 21/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.21/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Chalumuru Venkata Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer #1, Opp. Rtc Complex Ward-1 Vizianagaram Vizianagaram [Pan : Adxpc8298G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08 .03.2023

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

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69

declaring gross total income at Rs.3,76,402/-, on which deduction was claimed under Chapter VIA of Rs.74,861/-. The assessee also claimed agricultural income of Rs.78,000/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1). The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the notices ... which in turn was deposited on various dates in the bank account of the assessee. The Ld.AR contended that the assessee has shown the agricultural income of the assessee in the return of income and the amount received from his father, by selling the agricultural produce from time to time

Nirmalaben Jaswantsinh Rathod, Silvassa vs. Income Tax Officer, Vapi Ward-5, Vapi

In the result, the original grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 132/SRT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

/NFAC the assessee the assessee stated that she is engaged in the agricultural activities on taking land on lease. Bank deposits represents the agricultural income. The assessee also claimed to have earned agriculture income in past years and furnished copy of return of income, computation of income, income and expenditure ... Officer made addition of Rs. 10.00 lacs on account of deposit in Indusind bank. In the return of income, the assessee has disclosed net agricultural income of Rs. 6.60 lacs which consists of income from sale of milk, grass and paddy of Rs. 2,51,063/-. The assessee was having

Nirmalaben Jaswantsinh Rathod, Silvassa vs. Income Tax Officer, Vapi Ward-5, Vapi

In the result, the original grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 131/SRT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A