“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

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

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

ITA 170/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

ITO, Coimbatore vs. M.Balasaravanan, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed for

ITA 1934/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1934/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer, V. Mr.M.Balasaravanan, Non-Corporate Ward-4(2), No.1/46A, Jothi Nagar, 63-A, Race Course Road, Thiruvalluvar Street, Coimbatore. Kalapalayam, Theethipalayam, Coimbatore-641 010. [Pan: Aplpb 0708 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit

For Respondent: Mr.D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

relying on the cash flow statement produced by the assessee. wherein the assessee has showed that sources of the investment were from previous agricultural income. Cash flow statement has no legal validity in the eyes of law and allowing the assessee's appeal. 4. The Id. CIT (A) erred relying ... served on the assessee. In response, the assessee had field his return of income on 23.04.2014 declaring total income of Rs.6,06,650/- and agricultural income of Rs.8,25,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment has been completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147

Maruti Ningappa Patil, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-1 Kalyan, Mumbai

ITA 2198/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 69A

Maruti Ningappa Patil therefore the addition ought to be deleted as the same amounts to double addition. Disallowance of Rs.8,48,000/- being agricultural income u/s. 69A of the Act. 2. The ld CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.8,48,000/- being agricultural income offered ... also not examined the evidence brought on record before the AO to explain the source of income of Rs.13,50,000/- as agricultural income explained by way of letter dated 20.09.2021 along with supporting evidence. However, on the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the assessee contended that due opportunities

Kolla Gowri, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chittoor

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

ITA 1039/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Kolla Gowri, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, R/O.Chennai. Chittoor. Pan : Aoepg6939E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri C.A. Sumitra Nandan, Revenue By: Ms. Swapna. Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2022 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri C.A. Sumitra NandanFor Respondent: Ms. Swapna. Sr.A.R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)Section 50DSection 53A

entered into JDA on 30.04.2012. Hence, the AO considered it as short term capital gains. 2.5. Further, the AO treated the agricultural income offered by the appellant as income from other source as the appellant has not admitted of having any asset of agricultural land in the balance sheet ... admitted an income of Rs. 1,67,914/- as agricultural income. The Assessing Officer notes that asset mentioned in the balance sheet is agricultural land (Factory) and upon verification of document it is noted no agricultural activity has been done in the said land. Hence, land is considered

Subrahmanyam Jagarlamudi, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 414/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad20 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Subrahmanyam Vs. Income Tax Officer Jagarlamudi, Hyderabad Ward 11(1) Pan: Acxpj5454G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Mohd.Fazal Revenue By: Shri Naveen Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex-Parte Order Dated 28/06/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-10, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2013-14. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Ex-Parte Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Thereby Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,48,15,901/- Made By The Assessing Officer As Unexplained Income.

For Appellant: Advocate Mohd.FazalFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Kumar, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

unexplained income of the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,52,50,420/- and agricultural income of Rs.65,000/-. 4. Since the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT (A), the learned CIT (A) in the ex-parte order passed

Hemakumar Reddy Pouttiakula, Chittoor vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Tirupati

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1622/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Raj Pal Yadav & Shri Rama Kanta Panda

For Appellant: Ms. S.Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

case. 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from other sources, liquor business and agricultural income. A search u/s. 132 of the I.T.Act was conducted in the case of Shri Pottiakula Munirathnam Reddy & Others on 15.12.2016 during the course ... difference between the profit estimated by him and the profit declared by the assessee. 7. The AO further noted that assessee had shown agricultural income of Rs. 1,05,000/- for the impugned assessment year. However, the assessee has not claimed any agricultural expenses as deduction. He, therefore, asked

Raja Gopal Reddy Goli, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Raja Gopal Reddy Goli Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(5) Pan:Bbwpg4389J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 6.6.2019 Of The Learned Pr.Cit-5 Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2015-16. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: 1. The Order Of The Ld. Pr. Cit Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That There Is Error In The Order U/S 143(3) Dated 19.12.2017 3. The Ld. Pr. Cit Ought To Have Considered The Facts That The Assessing Officer While Completing The Assessment U/S 143(3) Considered All The Facts & Circumstances & Arrived At The Total Income. 4. The Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That The Assessment Order Is Erroneous & Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. 5. Any Other Ground That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.“ Page 1 Of 12

For Appellant: Advocate Smt. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

claim the assessee produced Pattadar Passbook and receipts of agricultural crops. In the computation of income statement, the assessee has shown that the agricultural income was earned on cultivation of 28 Acres. However, as per the Pattadar Passbook, the extent of agricultural land is 24 Acres 80 Cents only ... Assessing Officer, the assessee submitted that he cultivated various crops such as Mirchi, Mango, Tobacco, Sweet corn along with paddy and earned a net agricultural income of Rs. 20,01,000/-. The assessee also submitted that during the year under consideration, he did not sell any land. Therefore, even

Ghanshyam A . Dubhey, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Thane

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are dismissed

ITA 7609/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Gargh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 69BSection 69C

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law erred in confirming Rs.9,00,000/- as normal income instead of agriculture income in which the assessee had earned during the assessment year. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 11 on facts and in the circumstances ... During the assessment proceedings addition of Rs 3,57,320/- was made on account of salary, Rs 9,00,000/- on account of agriculture income treated as non-agriculture income, Rs 81060/- on account of deemed rental, Rs 10,79,591/- on account of unexplained investment in flat at Thane

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysore vs. Mr. Shorff Krishnarajasetty Satheesha, Kodagu

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

ITA 997/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.Akkal Dudhwewala, FCA

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153C

return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act for the impugned assessment year on 25.10.2017 declaring income of Rs.35,28,450 and agricultural income of Rs.2,29,954. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 26.04.2017 in the case of M/s. C.P.Exports, Plot No.12, KIADB

M/S Greatship (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Add/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed

ITA 650/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri M M GolwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

income is exempt, so also the expenses incurred for eventually earning the income will also be not allowed. For e.g., in the case of agricultural income, since the income from sale of produce is exempt, so also the expenses incurred on nurturing and maintaining the crops are not allowed irrespective

Subbunadar Chandra Sekar, Chennai vs. ITO, Cw-6(3), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 612/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (C.A) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

submitted that in the revisional order, Ld. Pr. CIT directed Ld. AO to examine the issue of cash deposit and agricultural income earned by the assessee which could not have been, otherwise, examined by Ld. AO under ‘limited scrutiny’. The Ld. AR filed written submissions which have duly been considered ... assessee made cash deposits of Rs.36.47 Lacs. The Ld. AO failed to verify the source of cash deposit. Further, the assessee claimed exempt agricultural income of Rs.11 Lacs, the genuineness of which was not verified by Ld. AO while passing the order. Though the assessee filed certain details and submission

Shri H.K. Suresh, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 625/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Ramachandan, CIT(TP1)(DR)(ITAT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

Rs.2,58,15,614. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) by making disallowance of agricultural income of Rs.5,00,000 and disallowance of expenses with respect to machinery maintenance of Rs.4,50,000. The case was reopened based on the information

Mr Salim Kunhi Bava, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 903/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Mr. Salim Kunhi Bava Acit-21(3) 17/19, Khallick Villa, Ground Floor, Mumbai Vs. Balamiya Lane, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 Pan/Gir No. Aacpb 5116 E (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

Bava vs. ACIT 4. The solitary issue involved in this appeal is the addition of Rs.17,72,115/- on estimated basis out of the agricultural income declared by the assessee. 5. The brief facts are that the assessee is in the business of Manpower Recruitment in the name ... income dated 31.08.2015, declaring total income of Rs.30,53,319/-. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny on account of “Large Agricultural Income” and assessment order dated 31.102.2017 was passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) u/s. 143(3) of the Act determining the total income

Shailesh D. Shah, Mumbai vs. PCIT-17, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1561/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 283

Revenue. (c) That the Pr CIT has erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the facts in specific reference to agricultural income was enquired during the assessment proceedings. (d) That the Pr. CIT has erred on facts and in law in assuming jurisdiction u/s 283 when ... assessment order u/s 143(3) rws 147, was passed only after making detailed enquiries in respect to agricultural income and its allowability to the appellant. The assessment order u/s 143(3) rw.s. 147 cannot be set aside merely because the Pr.CIT feels that further enquiry should have been made

Shailesh D. Shah, Mumbai vs. PCIT -17, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1560/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 283

Srinivas Rudrappa, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Ward-3(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 703/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv C Nulvi, C.A : Smt. Priyadarshini

Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

Srinivas Rudrappa, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Ward-3(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 702/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv C Nulvi, C.A : Smt. Priyadarshini

Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

Sri K R Udaya Kumar, Mysore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 525/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 234A

year under consideration, the assessee had filed his return of income on 31.03.2009 declaring an income of Rs.8,84,560/- including agricultural income of Rs.67,650/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the Ld.AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act by making an addition ... cogent and relevant material. The Revenue record supported the claim. Even the records of the IT Department showed that the assessee had declared agricultural income from this land in her returns for the preceding two years. The land being located in commercial area or the land having been partially utilised

Shri Hitendra C. Ghadia, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 616/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral Sejpal a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

Section 292CSection 69A

appellate proceedings the assessee however In the appellate proceedings the assessee however argued that Sh argued that Shri Bharat Dholariya was earning was earning agricultural income and own some land in respect of agricultural income and own some land in respect of agricultural income and own some land in respect ... income are never disclosed to the Department. Further income are never disclosed to the Department. Further it is not clear as to how much agricultural income did it is not clear as to how much agricultural income did it is not clear as to how much agricultural income did Shri

Shri. Hitendra C Ghadia, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 7219/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral Sejpal a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

Section 292CSection 69A