← 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

Shabana Bee, Indore vs. The ITO 3(3), Indore

ITA 19/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shabana Bee, Pcit-1, 786, Vishwas Indore बनाम/ Nagarbanzari, Vs. Pithampur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Asfpb 7940 R Assessee By Shri Subhash Chandra Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2023

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

milk-selling and agricultural activities,filed return of income of relevant AY 2017-18 declaring a total income of Rs. 9,55,800/- and agricultural income of Rs. 76,35,700/-, which was subjected to scrutiny-assessment by issuing statutory notices u/s 143(2)/142(1). Finally ... reason of framing such a view, as mentioned by Ld. PCIT in the show-cause notice dated 23.12.2021,is that the assessee declared an agricultural income of Rs. 76,35,700/- which was accepted by Ld. AO without making enquiries. 4. By the aforesaid show-cause notice, the assessee

Mukul Jain, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Meerut

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

ITA 580/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Satish Aggarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 68

That proper opportunity of hearing was not given to us hence ex-parte assessment order deserve to be quashed. 2 Mukul Jain 3. That agriculture income of Rs. 17,67,400.00 has to be allowed as the same has been accepted in the past ... also by CIT Appeal in appellate proceedings. The assessing officer in his remand report has accepted the agriculture income. Hence the addition confirmed by CIT Appeal deserve to be deleted. 4. That addition of Rs. 13,08,000.00 being deposit in SB A/c is explained from agriculture income and also

Shri Jayantkumar Parshottambhai Vadodariya, Gondal, Dist. Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (3) (5), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 25/RJT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year :2012-13 Jayantkumar Parshottambhai Vadodaria Ito, Ward-2(3)(5) 9/11, Bhagvatpara Vs Rajkot. Opp: Rdc Bank Gondal, Rajkot. Pan : Aaxpv 6758 P

For Appellant: Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 263Section 69

direction to make inquiries and verification regarding creditworthiness of donors who had made gifts/ loans and advances to the assessee purportedly out of their agricultural income. The gifts/ loans & advances under consideration were to the tune of Rs.26,90,000/-. The break-up of the same is as under: Name ... Kajalben Gondaliya, ITA No.713/Rjt/2014 dated 13.2.2019 and held that in the case of agriculturists who do not maintain any books of accounts, the agricultural income and the capacity of such persons should be judged with reference to the quantum of his land holdings. He further relied on the decision

Shuaib Ahmed, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 65(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 7782/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. D. R
Section 144Section 147Section 148

I.T.A. No. 7782/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “S.M.C.” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL

Farha S. Kadri, Bilimora vs. ITO, Ward-2, Navsari

In the result, the original ground No

ITA 331/SRT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Farha S Kadri, I.T.O. 762, Bazar Street, Bunder Road, Ward-2, Vs. Bilimora (Gujarat)-396321 Navsari. Pan No. Annpk 8150 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

Baroda. The assessee filed her reply dated 06/11/2017. In the reply, the assessee stated that she belongs to an agricultural family and have agricultural income, they are also doing dairy farming and have income from sale of milk, which is shown in the return of income ... other source of income. During the relevant financial year, the assessee earned net agricultural income of Rs. 3,63,260/-. The assessee furnished record of agriculture holding in the form No. 7/12 and 8A, and vouchers of sales of mangos. The assessee also furnished cash flow statement. The assesse also

Jitender Singh Kataria, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Gurgaon

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1592/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Briefly stated facts are that in this case the assessee filed its return of income declaring income of Rs. 2,50,760/- and agricultural income of Rs. 1,30,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment. The Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment, sought explanation about the source

Shri Khalid Aman, Bhopal vs. The PCIT-2, Bhopal

ITA 225/IND/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Khalid Aman, Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aarpa 4443 L Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2023

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

PCIT has made a general remark without specifying which entries were not verified by Ld. AO. (vi) Issue No. 6 – The assessee has declared agricultural income on estimate basis while there is no agricultural land appearing in the Balance-Sheet: Ld. AR carried us to Paper Book-III / Page

Alok Kumar, Motihari vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Muzaffarpur

In the result, ITA No. 127/PAT/2019 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, whereas ITA No

ITA 128/PAT/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Patna06 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 153A

Rs.5,00,000/- in A.Y. 2006-07 and 2012-13 respectively. These additions have been made by the ld. Assessing Officer by holding that agricultural income declared by the assessee could not be substantiated. Hence these incomes deserve to be assessed as income from other sources. 3. Brief facts ... members. A notice under section 153A was issued upon the assessee in both the years. The assessee has filed his return of income disclosing agricultural income of Rs.1,85,000/- in A.Y. 2006-07 and Rs.5,00,000/- in A.Y. 2012-13. The ld. Assessing Officer did not accept this

Alok Kumar, Motihari vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Muzaffarpur

In the result, ITA No. 127/PAT/2019 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, whereas ITA No

ITA 127/PAT/2019[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Patna06 Jan 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 153A

Rs.5,00,000/- in A.Y. 2006-07 and 2012-13 respectively. These additions have been made by the ld. Assessing Officer by holding that agricultural income declared by the assessee could not be substantiated. Hence these incomes deserve to be assessed as income from other sources. 3. Brief facts ... members. A notice under section 153A was issued upon the assessee in both the years. The assessee has filed his return of income disclosing agricultural income of Rs.1,85,000/- in A.Y. 2006-07 and Rs.5,00,000/- in A.Y. 2012-13. The ld. Assessing Officer did not accept this

Rakesh Kumar Agrawal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-46(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 932/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 249

case in disallowing the agricultural expenses. 2 ITA No.932/Del./2020 3. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law in disallowing the agricultural income at Rs.1,08,78,737/- against declared at Rs.66,24,181/-. That no income can be earned without incurring incidental expenses. 4. It is therefore prayed ... this case, in the assessment order, Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.1,08,78,737/- which was claimed by assessee as exempt agricultural income. 4. Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) noted that on several notices, nobody turned up on behalf of the assessee. Further

Shri Jorubha Jilubha Jadeja, Village Zankhar Post Vidinar Taluka Lalpur, Dist Jamnagar vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(2), Jamnagar

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

ITA 3/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

that the assessee is a Senior Citizen deriving income from the machinery hiring services, Income from House Property, Income from other sources and Agricultural Income. For the Assessment Year 2017-18, the assessee filed his Return of Income declaring total income at Rs. 2,48,820/- and agricultural income ... return was selected for scrutiny assessment for the reason “Large agricultural income shown in the return and large cash deposit during demonetization period”. 2.2. The assessee owns 96 bighas of land and carrying out agricultural activity with the help of those person who work on sharing basis and take

Naresh Kantilal Thacker, Gandhidham vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 28/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

Assessment Year 2014-15. Thus the claim of the assessee that the gain on the sale of land is to be treated as agriculture income is without basis and merits. Trading in agriculture land cannot be termed as income from agriculture. The intention of the assessee was clear ... declared gain on sale of agricultural land of Rs.23,96.,970/-. However he has treated the same as exempt covered under the umbrella of agricultural income. It is apparent from the assessment order that the initial purchase was funded by M/s. Agarwalla Teak International Pvt. Ltd. which subsequently brought

Atul Kumar Anchalia, Jaora vs. PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 63/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Dafaria, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263

such huge amount of cash is deposited in bank account, while the withdrawals were nominal. Similarly, the assessee has never declared agriculture income during the year under consideration nor in the earlier returns, how the sale of land is exempt u/s. 2(14) of the Act, which was not verified ... notices, the Assessing Officer has not made proper and necessary enquiry on the sale of agriculture lands and whether the assessee has returned any agricultural income in the preceding two assessment years from the above lands by the assessee. The Assessing Officer also has not verified why the assessee filed

Anupama Chathankandath, Palakkad vs. The ACIT Circle-1, Palakkad

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 27/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Padmanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, SR AR

No.26 and 27/Coch/2022 Page 2 of 11 the Assessing officer as the Department Inspectors have conducted a field visit and submitted reports. 2. As agricultural income is exempt from personal tax at Kerala, and as the properties are managed by the assessee’s father along with the agricultural properties ... only one source of income i.e. income from business which has been accepted, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the agricultural income estimated and offered by the assesse has to be accepted. We rely on the decision of the Hon. Gujarat High Court in -- Income Tax Officer

Anupamachathankandath, Palakkad vs. The ACIT Circle-1, Palakkad

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 26/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Padmanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, SR AR

No.26 and 27/Coch/2022 Page 2 of 11 the Assessing officer as the Department Inspectors have conducted a field visit and submitted reports. 2. As agricultural income is exempt from personal tax at Kerala, and as the properties are managed by the assessee’s father along with the agricultural properties ... only one source of income i.e. income from business which has been accepted, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the agricultural income estimated and offered by the assesse has to be accepted. We rely on the decision of the Hon. Gujarat High Court in -- Income Tax Officer

Ramakrishna Murali, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 975/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271D

ITA No.975/Bang/2022 Ramakrishna Murali, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Beni Prasad Lahoti, Howrah vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 306/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)

total income is determined as under:- Total income as per return of income Rs 28,45,960/- Total assessed income Rs 28,45,960/- Agricultural income for rate purpose Rs.6,14,131/- 4. Assessed u/s. 153A of the I T Act, 1961. Charge tax. Charge interest u/s. 234A, 234B

Beni Prasad Lahoti, Howrah vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 302/KOL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)

total income is determined as under:- Total income as per return of income Rs 28,45,960/- Total assessed income Rs 28,45,960/- Agricultural income for rate purpose Rs.6,14,131/- 4. Assessed u/s. 153A of the I T Act, 1961. Charge tax. Charge interest u/s. 234A, 234B

Kathiravan Srinivasan, Perambalur vs. DCIT, Circle -1, Tiruchirapalli

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

ITA 172/CHNY/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.: 170 & 171/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.: 172/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kathiravan Srinivasan, Vs The Dcit, No.274C, Thuraiyur Road, Circle-1, 2Nd Perambalur – 621 212. Main Building, Floor, New No.44, Old No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Pan: Ajspk 6687Q Trichirapalli-620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Two Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai In Ita Nos.581 & 582/Chny/19-20 Dated 03.03.2022. The Assessments In Ita Nos.170 & 172/Chny/2022 Were Framed By The Jcit, Range 1, Trichy For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014 Respectively. The Third Appeal In Ita No.171/Chny/2022 Is Against The Assessment Order Framed In Consequence To Revision Order Passed By Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act & Consequent Order Of The Ao For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act Dated 12.03.2015 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-1, Trichy.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Darzakhum Songate, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

assessee is an individual and deriving income from various business as enumerated by us in para 3 of this order like running petrol bunk, agricultural income, rent from hiring of JCB, doing transport business, diary business, salary from chit fund company, rental income and interest income, etc. The assessee maintained ... been given as 2002. 20. M. Senthil (123) 2.95 1,00,000 4,50,000 5,50,000 30,00,000 This person claims agricultural income of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 4.5 lakhs from cow breeding. From this total earning of Rs. 5.5 lakhs, he has stated that

Kathiravan Srinivasan, Perambalur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Tiruchirapalli

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

ITA 171/CHNY/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.: 170 & 171/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.: 172/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kathiravan Srinivasan, Vs The Dcit, No.274C, Thuraiyur Road, Circle-1, 2Nd Perambalur – 621 212. Main Building, Floor, New No.44, Old No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Pan: Ajspk 6687Q Trichirapalli-620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Two Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai In Ita Nos.581 & 582/Chny/19-20 Dated 03.03.2022. The Assessments In Ita Nos.170 & 172/Chny/2022 Were Framed By The Jcit, Range 1, Trichy For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014 Respectively. The Third Appeal In Ita No.171/Chny/2022 Is Against The Assessment Order Framed In Consequence To Revision Order Passed By Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act & Consequent Order Of The Ao For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act Dated 12.03.2015 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-1, Trichy.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Darzakhum Songate, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

assessee is an individual and deriving income from various business as enumerated by us in para 3 of this order like running petrol bunk, agricultural income, rent from hiring of JCB, doing transport business, diary business, salary from chit fund company, rental income and interest income, etc. The assessee maintained ... been given as 2002. 20. M. Senthil (123) 2.95 1,00,000 4,50,000 5,50,000 30,00,000 This person claims agricultural income of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 4.5 lakhs from cow breeding. From this total earning of Rs. 5.5 lakhs, he has stated that