“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 Laljibhai Kalubhai Miyani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(5), Surat

ITA 246/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Shri Jivrajbhai Kalubhai Miyani, I.T.O., A/31, 32 Ramdevpir Nagar, Ward 3(3)(2), Vs. Varachha Road, Varachha, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Aempm 3134 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Shri Laljibhai Kalubhai Miyani, I.T.O., 83, Shirdidham Society, Hira Ward 3(3)(5), Vs. Baug, Varachha Road, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Ablpp 5096 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 154Section 156Section 254(1)Section 50C

business activity and no substantial source of income except interest income from savings bank account, Sh. Jivrajbhai Kalubhai Miyani Vs ITO & 1 Anr. agricultural income, for the year under appeal, the assessee earned capital gain on sale of immovable property. The assessee is native of Saurashtra, North Gujarat ... individual, filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 on 30/03/2013 declaring income of Rs. 6,86,470/-. The assessee also shown agricultural income of Rs. 43,210/- for the rate purposes. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee

Shri Jivrajbhai Kalubhai Miyani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(2), Surat

ITA 245/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Section 154Section 156Section 254(1)Section 50C

Subhash Gujar, Jhajjar vs. ITO, Ward-4, Rohtak

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 6053/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

story to only to explain the bank deposits and is rejected. Similarly, perusal of the return of income originally filed also reveals that no agricultural income for the year was declared in that return whereas now the assessee furnished form No.J from the commission agents that he sold crops ... Kumar 19.09.2006 Vijay Kumar, Krishan Kumar & 450,000.00 Mahender Kumar 370000 Cattlesale 80000/- 10.11.2006 Cattle Purchase 200,000.00 30.10.2006 Cattle sale 120000/- 450,000.00 Agriculture Income from-J 330000 20.11.2006 Cash deposit 390,000.00 28.12.2006 Self 150,000.00 Dilwar & Dharmender 03.01.2007 Self 220,000.00 350000/- & Cash 40000/- 18.11.2007 Self

Jitender Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Gurgaon

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

ITA 5868/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Jitender Kumar, Vs Ito, 805, Swarn Jayanti Society, Ward-2(2), Sector-54, Gurgaon -122002. Gurgaon. Pan-Ainpk6720E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Dileep Phoolakot, Adv. & Shri Dinesh Kumar, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.02.2023

Section 147Section 148

appeal:- 1. “That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions of Rs.2,40,846/- estimating the expenses at 15% of the agriculture income, that was made on an ad hoc basis by the Ld. AO and the CIT(A) has not considered the explanation made on behalf ... Authorized Representative (“AR”) of the assessee attended the proceedings and filed copy of return of income declaring income of Rs.1,33,932/- alongwith agricultural income of Rs.16,05,644/-. The AO during the course of assessment, called upon the assessee to explain the source of cash deposit. Further, during

Shri Ramandeep Singh, Rampura vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (3), Bathinda

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

ITA 84/ASR/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)Section 69

from Kinnus 03.11.2008 Cash Received from K.S. 1,50,000 - 17,46,500 Company 4,11,150 • 21,57,650 Cash received from 08.11.2008 agriculture income 72,325.72 - 22,29,975.7 Cash received from 11.11.2008 2 Sohan Lai & Co, 14.11.2008 Cash received from ... cash accumulation would automatically leave behind footprints and trail. In absence of any such evidence the explanation of the appellant deserves dismissed. 4.2.3 Other Agriculture income: Besides the potatoes the appellant also provided evidence of amount received from K. S. Company and Sohan lal company for himself and his brother

Shri Ramandeep Singh Sidhu, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Bathinda

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

ITA 311/ASR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)Section 69

Smt. Purnima Das, Bhubaneswar vs. Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

ITA 95/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack16 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Purnima Das, C/O. Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1. Biswajit Das, At-9, Budha Nagar, Budheswari, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aazpd0112 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit Passed U./S.263 Of The Act, Dated 12.3.2022 In Appeal No. Itba/Rev/F/Reev5/2021-22/10540634159(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee Assisted By Ms.Sugyanee Kuanr & Ms. Simran Samal, Intern From Birla School Of Law (Bgu), Bhubaneswar & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue Assisted By Shri Dharmashoka Panda, Intern From Birla School Of Law (Bgu), Bhubaneswar. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is An Individual, Who Is A Professor Of Mathematics At P.N.College, Khurda. The Assessee Had Filed Her Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year On 5.8.2017

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271D

assessee had grown paddy on the said land and on account of destruction by the elephants, the assessee was unable to get any agricultural income out of the said lands and whatever produce the assessee could derive, had been used by the assessee’s family members. It was the submission ... assessee was beyond the prescribed distance under the Act, the assessee had claimed the income from the sale of the said land as agricultural income. It was the submission that in the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer had issued a notice u/s.142(1) on 15.10.2019, wherein, the Assessing Officer

Jagdish Chandra Choudhary, Ajmer vs. ITO W-2(2) Ajmer, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 378/JPR/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 147

land and revenue record are submitted. The appellant has made claim of receiving agricultural receipt gifted by his father without any evidence. The term "Agricultural Income" has been defined u/s 2(1A) of the Act. The definition of agricultural income' under section 2(1A) provides that the following shall constitute ... agricultural income- (i) Any rent or revenue derived from land which is situated in India and is used for agricultural purposes [Section 2(1A)(a)] (ii) Any income derived from such land by agricultural operation including processing and sale of the agricultural produce as rent-in-kind

Siddarthini Nanda, Nayasarak, Cuttack vs. Asst. CIT( Circle-1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of both the assessees are allowed

ITA 197/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.196/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Indu Devi Tibarewal, Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, At/Po: Nayasarak, Bhubaneswar Cuttack-753002 Pan No. :Acxpt 4424 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.197/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Siddarthini Nanda, Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Nayasarak, Bhubaneswar Cuttack-753002 Pan No. :Abapn 0104 F (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

confirming the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. It was submitted by the ld. AR that both the assessees had disclosed agricultural income in their respective returns. The AO had disallowed agricultural income and had treated the same as income from other sources. In the assessment order

Indu Devi Tibarewal, Cuttack vs. Asst.CIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of both the assessees are allowed

ITA 196/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Ravinder Kumar Goyal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 46(2), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8319/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Her When She Is Empowered By Law To Do So.

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Senior DR

Section 54F

from time to time on contract for Crop Activities and during the year under assessment, I received a sum of Rs.20,000/- as agricultural income. The contractor was bearing all the expenses of seed, cultivation and other expenses relating thereto I also wish to inform you that in the said ... declared a sum of Rs.20,000/- and in the A. Y. 2014- 15 I have received & declared a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as agricultural income. Since I am doing my business activity in Delhi, I had given the agricultural land for crop activity to a contractor

Shri Kuldeep Singh Son of Shri.Bhura Singh, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward1 ( 4 ), Mansa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 82/ASR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 147Section 250Section 69

assessee was asked for source of the investment during assessment proceeding. It was explained that the source of investment was from agricultural income and further assessee has taken the gift from Smt. Basant Kaur and Smt. Paramjit Kaur amount to Rs. 10 lacs each. But the said gift ... revenue authorities due to the lack of genuineness. During I.T.A. No.82/Asr/2021 4 Assessment Year: 2012-13 assessment, the ld. AO accepted the agricultural income of assessee amount to Rs.13,25,000/- as genuine. The balance amount of investment Rs.39,25,000/- (Rs.52,50,000/- (-) Rs.13,25,000/-) was added back

Shri Manjit Singh S/O Shri.Gurdev Singh Khera, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer -II, Moga

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 278/ASR/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

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

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 68

I.T.A. No.278/Asr/2019 6 Assessment Year: 2006-07 assessee has explained the source of cash deposit as income out of agricultural income and past savings, however the assessee has completely failed to adduce any documentary evidence in support of his contention. Therefore considering the facts of the case and non cooperative

Planman Hr Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range- 20, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6325/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No.6325/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Planman Hr Pvt. Ltd, Vs Addl. Cit, 48, Community Center, Nariana Industrial Range-20, Area, New Delhi-110028 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcp0981K

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Nargas, Sr. DR

Section 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

loan or deposit is taken or accepted and the person by whom the loan or deposit is taken or accepted are both having agricultural income and neither of them has any income chargeable to tax under this Act.] Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— [(i) "banking company" means

Harbans Singh, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 1 (4), Mansa

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

ITA 40/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Axis Bank, Samaon Branch 28/12/2015 to 26/05/2017 State Bank of India, Bhikhi 65112418452 27/09/2015 to 29/04/2017 b). I did not have any income except agricultural income during the year under consideration. Copy of the 3 J Forms and copy of land holding proof i.e Jamabandi are enclosed herewith. c). Copy

Prashant Kumar Singh, Bulandshahr vs. ITO Ward - 3(3), Bulandshahr

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as dismissed

ITA 5293/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11 Prashant Kumar Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3) B-30, Yamunapuram, Bullandshahr. Bullandshahr Uttar Pradesh Pin: 203001 Pan Avpps5108R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)

stated, the facts are that the assessee filed his return for AY 2010-11 on 17.05.2010 declaring income of Rs. 1,78,410/- and agricultural income of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Thereafter, on the basis of AIR information that the assessee has deposited cash aggregating

Sobh Ram, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panipat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands

ITA 2033/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Satyam Aneja, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohre, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

notice u/s. 148 of the Act, filed its return of income on dated 28.08.2017 by declaring total income at Rs.1,85,000/- and agricultural income at Rs.5,00,000/-. Subsequently, statutory notices have also been issued to the Assessee. The Assessing Officer after discussion and examination of the case computed ... respectively on account of unexplained cash deposits in bank account, income from undisclosed sources which was shown in the garb of agricultural income and Long-term capital gains not declared in the return of income. 3 3. The Assessee being aggrieved preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner

Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Intl. Taxation, Circle, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6278/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 40aSection 57Section 80I

because the explanation is placed before the said clause In the act. The assessee relied on the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Vs. The Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd AIR 2000 SC 3714, M/s. Patel Roadways Ltd. vs. M/s. Prasad Trading ... w.e.f. 1-4-2003. 24. The case laws cited by the assessee do not pertain to Income Tax Act but to Evidence Act and Agriculture Income Tax Act and there may be ambiguity in the scope of applicability of "explanation" in the respective Acts. 35. Accordingly, the AO has rightly

Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Intl. Taxation, Circle, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6277/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 40aSection 57Section 80I

DCIT, Intl. Taxation, Circle, Gurgaon vs. Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5989/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 40aSection 57Section 80I