← 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

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Sri M.Palanisamy, Coimbatore

ITA 1186/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

assessee. The assessee is engaged in the business of sand quarrying and lorry operations. The assessee is declaring income from business and agricultural income. For the earlier years, the assessee was quarrying sand on the basis of lease rights granted by Government of TamilNadu in his own name ... fact that the assessee file original return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 28.11.2003 admitting business income of Rs.9,63,760/- and agriculture income of Rs.12,45,950/-. The AO while completing assessment u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act made following additions:- Add: Excess loss adjusted

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Sri M.Palanisamy, Coimbatore

ITA 1185/CHNY/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

assessee. The assessee is engaged in the business of sand quarrying and lorry operations. The assessee is declaring income from business and agricultural income. For the earlier years, the assessee was quarrying sand on the basis of lease rights granted by Government of TamilNadu in his own name ... fact that the assessee file original return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 28.11.2003 admitting business income of Rs.9,63,760/- and agriculture income of Rs.12,45,950/-. The AO while completing assessment u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act made following additions:- Add: Excess loss adjusted

M.Palanisamy, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

ITA 1044/CHNY/2011[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

assessee. The assessee is engaged in the business of sand quarrying and lorry operations. The assessee is declaring income from business and agricultural income. For the earlier years, the assessee was quarrying sand on the basis of lease rights granted by Government of TamilNadu in his own name ... fact that the assessee file original return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 28.11.2003 admitting business income of Rs.9,63,760/- and agriculture income of Rs.12,45,950/-. The AO while completing assessment u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act made following additions:- Add: Excess loss adjusted

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Sri M.Palanisamy, Coimbatore

ITA 1583/CHNY/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

assessee. The assessee is engaged in the business of sand quarrying and lorry operations. The assessee is declaring income from business and agricultural income. For the earlier years, the assessee was quarrying sand on the basis of lease rights granted by Government of TamilNadu in his own name ... fact that the assessee file original return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 28.11.2003 admitting business income of Rs.9,63,760/- and agriculture income of Rs.12,45,950/-. The AO while completing assessment u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act made following additions:- Add: Excess loss adjusted

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Sri M.Palanisamy, Coimbatore

ITA 1582/CHNY/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

assessee. The assessee is engaged in the business of sand quarrying and lorry operations. The assessee is declaring income from business and agricultural income. For the earlier years, the assessee was quarrying sand on the basis of lease rights granted by Government of TamilNadu in his own name ... fact that the assessee file original return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 28.11.2003 admitting business income of Rs.9,63,760/- and agriculture income of Rs.12,45,950/-. The AO while completing assessment u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act made following additions:- Add: Excess loss adjusted

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri A.Senthilkumar, Coimbatore

ITA 1452/CHNY/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

assessee. The assessee is engaged in the business of sand quarrying and lorry operations. The assessee is declaring income from business and agricultural income. For the earlier years, the assessee was quarrying sand on the basis of lease rights granted by Government of TamilNadu in his own name ... fact that the assessee file original return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 28.11.2003 admitting business income of Rs.9,63,760/- and agriculture income of Rs.12,45,950/-. The AO while completing assessment u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act made following additions:- Add: Excess loss adjusted

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri A.Senthilkumar, Coimbatore

ITA 1451/CHNY/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

assessee. The assessee is engaged in the business of sand quarrying and lorry operations. The assessee is declaring income from business and agricultural income. For the earlier years, the assessee was quarrying sand on the basis of lease rights granted by Government of TamilNadu in his own name ... fact that the assessee file original return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 28.11.2003 admitting business income of Rs.9,63,760/- and agriculture income of Rs.12,45,950/-. The AO while completing assessment u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act made following additions:- Add: Excess loss adjusted

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri A.Senthilkumar, Coimbatore

ITA 1450/CHNY/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

assessee. The assessee is engaged in the business of sand quarrying and lorry operations. The assessee is declaring income from business and agricultural income. For the earlier years, the assessee was quarrying sand on the basis of lease rights granted by Government of TamilNadu in his own name ... fact that the assessee file original return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 28.11.2003 admitting business income of Rs.9,63,760/- and agriculture income of Rs.12,45,950/-. The AO while completing assessment u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act made following additions:- Add: Excess loss adjusted

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri A.Senthilkumar, Coimbatore

ITA 1449/CHNY/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

assessee. The assessee is engaged in the business of sand quarrying and lorry operations. The assessee is declaring income from business and agricultural income. For the earlier years, the assessee was quarrying sand on the basis of lease rights granted by Government of TamilNadu in his own name ... fact that the assessee file original return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 28.11.2003 admitting business income of Rs.9,63,760/- and agriculture income of Rs.12,45,950/-. The AO while completing assessment u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act made following additions:- Add: Excess loss adjusted

Samir Shantilal Somaiya, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1798/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhsamir Shantilal Somaiya Vs. Ito-2(3)(3) Fazalbhoy Building, 45- Aayakar Bhavan, 47, M.G. Road, For, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Amups9442C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 56

that the ground of appeal relating to (1) capital transaction of inheriting the agricultural land valued at Rs. 5,09,438/-as agricultural income and (ii) Agriculture income of A.Y. 2012-13 as income of A.Y. 2013-14 of Rs. 12,500/- as ground not pressed by the appellants ... made detailed written submissions to the learned CIT(A). Your appellant submits that the said amount of Rs.5,21,938/- is not the agricultural income of your appellant but an agricultural capital receipt and not liable to tax. 3. Your appellants further reserve the rights to add, amend or alter

Nepal Singh Rathod (HUF), Hubli vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 400/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Further it is factually evident that the assessee has submitted all the relevant details with regard to cash deposits and agricultural income and the AO has in fact made additions with regard to the agricultural income. Merely because the order was not passed elaborately it would not be said that

K Ranadheer Reddy, Cuddapah vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 264/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Kasireddy Ranadheer Reddy Vs Dcit, Central Circle - 2(1) No.5/19, Kuravapalli (V) C.R. Building, Queen'S Road T. Sundupalli, Cuddapah 516214 Bengaluru 560001 Andhra Pradesh Pan – Amcpr4790E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, Itp Revenue By: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 154Section 156Section 270ASection 271ASection 69Section 69A

hand loans given by the assessee. The assessee while answering Q.No.10 has stated that the source for these hand loans is his agricultural income and the interest income over the years. It can be observed from the order of the AO in para 11.1 where the AO has noted ... assessee for such financial year.] 9. In the given case it is an admitted fact that the source for the money lending business is agricultural income and the interest income earned by the assessee. In the light of these factual findings we see merit in the argument by the learned

Heena Suresh Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 6617/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blesuresh M. Jain Huf V. Ito-19(3)(4), 52A Nanu Bhai Desai Road 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 Mulji Thakersi Building 2Nd Floor, Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aalhs7460R (Appellant) (Respondent) Heena Suresh Jain V.

For Appellant: Shri. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Vaibhav Jain
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)

books maintained by the Assessee. The ITAT has recorded a finding that the source of funds for acquisition of the shares was the agricultural income which was duly offered and assessed to tax in those Assessment Years. The Assessee has produced certificates from the aforesaid four companies to the effect

Suresh M Jain HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 6614/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blesuresh M. Jain Huf V. Ito-19(3)(4), 52A Nanu Bhai Desai Road 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 Mulji Thakersi Building 2Nd Floor, Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aalhs7460R (Appellant) (Respondent) Heena Suresh Jain V.

For Appellant: Shri. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Vaibhav Jain
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)

books maintained by the Assessee. The ITAT has recorded a finding that the source of funds for acquisition of the shares was the agricultural income which was duly offered and assessed to tax in those Assessment Years. The Assessee has produced certificates from the aforesaid four companies to the effect

Charoen Pokphand Seeds India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 509/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Charoen Pokphand Seeds India The Principal Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1021/1, Service Income Tax, Road, Gitanjali Layout, Bengaluru – 2, Hal Iii Stage, Vs. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 075. Pan: Aaccc3259N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri C. Ramesh, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order U/S. 263 Dated 15.03.2022 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit, Bengaluru – 2, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Appellant Objects To The Revision Order Passed U/S. 263 On The Following Grounds In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The As It Is Opposed To Law & Circumstances Of The Case: - Originally The Appellant Has Taken Only One Ground Relating To Deduction U/S.35(2Ab). The Following Grounds Were Not Taken By Oversight. Hence The Appellant Is Filing Revised Grounds Of Appeal As Mentioned Below.

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CA
Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

provisions of section 263 of the Act ignoring the fact that the Appellant company's activities falls under Agricultural activities and the said agricultural income is exempt from tax u/s.10(1) of the Act and the same was examined by the A.O. during the course of assessment ... correct in not appreciating the facts that the A.O. has verified the Agricultural income claimed as exempt and allowed the same as exemption from ta, based on the Appellant company's activities, during u/s.143(3) proceedings by calling detailed information in this regard. 3. The Pr. CIT erred in invoking

Sudalaimani Palanivelrajan, Mannargudi vs. DCIT Circle-2, Thanjavur

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 482/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Chinthapalli Meher Chand, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

that the Assessee/Appellant had filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2014 - 2015 declaring a total income of Rs.21,72,210/- and agricultural income of Rs.2,74,250/- on 15.04.2015. The assessment has been subsequently reopened u/s.147 of the Act for the reasons recorded as per which

C.Petchiappan, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-19(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 2766/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

only grievance of the assessee is addition of cash deposit u/s 68 for Rs.11.39 Lacs. The Ld. AR attributed the same to the agricultural income and also advanced argument to submit that no such addition could be made u/s 68 since the assessee was not required to maintain books ... accounts. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that no agricultural income was admitted in the return of income. Having considered rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under. The assessee being government employee is stated to be working in an ESI dispensary. 3. During assessment proceedings, it transpired that during

Shri. Gangahanumaiah Lakshminarayana, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(2)(5), Bangalore

ITA 1250/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri N.P.S. Sundar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R
Section 2(47)Section 234BSection 45Section 54B

stated that the land was agricultural land and hence exempt from taxation. The AO observed that neither the assessee nor his father had declared agricultural income for the preceding two years. Further, the land had been sold as residential plots, as evident from the registered sale deeds submitted

Sri C Aswathanarayana, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds raised for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10

ITA 2584/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.2583 & 2584/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 132(4)Section 271Section 271A

response to the said notice. The assessee had filed the return of income on 2/4/2009, declaring an income of Rs.3,24,72,389/- and agricultural income of Rs.4,30,400/- before the ACIT, Central Circle-2(1) Bangalore. The returned income consists of income from business amounting to Rs.3

Sri C Aswathanarayana, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds raised for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10

ITA 2583/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.2583 & 2584/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 132(4)Section 271Section 271A

response to the said notice. The assessee had filed the return of income on 2/4/2009, declaring an income of Rs.3,24,72,389/- and agricultural income of Rs.4,30,400/- before the ACIT, Central Circle-2(1) Bangalore. The returned income consists of income from business amounting to Rs.3