“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

Sri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(3)(5), Bangalore

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy, ITP

Section 10(1)Section 143Section 2(14)Section 234Section 292BSection 54B

agricultural purpose before sale and the sale of converted land for non-agricultural purpose should be liable for tax as it is not an agricultural income in terms of section 2(14) of the Act. We note that assessee has filed following additional grounds. It is submitted that ... converted the land and at the time of entering into sale agreement, land was not converted into non- agricultural land. The assessee also declared agricultural income from the said land as an agricultural income at Rs.9 lakhs, which was accepted by the department and there was no disturbance on this

Amjad Anwar Shahbazker, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of AO for statistical purpose and ground raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1502/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 143(2)

case are, the return of income (ROI) was filed by the assesse on 30.03.2014 declaring total income of ₹.64,17,020/- and claiming agricultural income at ₹.27,87,290/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served ... assesse is a director in Intercon Construction India Pvt Ltd and has offered income from salary, capital gain, other sources and Agricultural income. During Assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer observed that assesse has shown agricultural receipts of ₹.33,59,941/- from its proprietary concern, M/s Merit Farms. The assesse was asked

Sr. Loganathan Manickam, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 776/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Narayana K.R., D.R

withdrew a sum of Rs.5,00.000/- on 18.8.2003 and 2,00.000/- on 20.8.2003 front her savings account. She is an agriculturist and she had agricultural income. Once she demonstrated that she was in possession of Rs.7,00,000/- cash plus agricultural income on her hands, if after 40 days

Arundhathi, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 605/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Arundhathi, Ito, Vs. 760, 60Th Cross, 5Th Block, Ward – 2(2)(2), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 010. Pan : Aaxpa 4328 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 115Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69

agricultural operation by the assessee. Even the AO and the CIT(A) accept this fact. The only dispute is with regard to quantum of agricultural income. In this regard, it is worthwhile to note that the assesse has returned a gross agricultural income of Rs.39 lakhs and a net agricultural

Anil Nanatty Chandran, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6905/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 143(3)Section 24(1)(vi)Section 250Section 68

under the head ‘Income from Salary’, ‘Nil’ income under the head Income from House Property and income of INR 10,88,450/- as net agricultural income. The case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act after making ... disallowance of interest of INR 1,50,000/- claimed by the Appellant under Section 24(1)(vi) of the Act, (ii) the addition/disallowances of agriculture income amounting to INR 10,88,450/-, (iii) disallowance under Section 68 of the Act amounting to INR.26,36,762/- and INR.95

M/S. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Sri Ramasubramaniyan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

have been obtained from the Village Administrative Officer behind the back of the petitioner, overlooking the material furnished by the assessee to substantiate his agricultural income and without giving M/s. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust For Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar Page 32 of 61 opportunity to cross-examine the Village Administrative

Sri Ningappa Managuli, Hutti vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Raichur

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

ITA 684/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, A.R., Standing counsel for Revenue

Section 115BSection 68Section 69A

this appeal is with regard to the sustaining of sum of Rs.73,781/-, out of original addition of Rs.1,47,562/- in respect of agricultural income treated as non-agricultural income. 7. Facts of the case are that assessee shown agricultural income at Rs.14,75,620/-. The assessee is said ... owned agricultural land to the extent of 24 acres. The assessee however, failed to substantiate the entire agricultural income with the proper documentary evidence like sale pattis, crop grown certificates from the concerned authorities. In the absence of the above, the AO disallowed 10% of agricultural income as income from

Sri Tanzing Tashi, Mysore vs. The Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Ward-1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 187/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranit(It)A No.187/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Tanzing Tashi, Ito (International Taxation), Vs. O B M Road, Koppa, Ward – 1(1), Bylukuppe, Periyapatna Taluk Bengaluru. Mysore – 571 104. Pan : Aotpt 1710 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 133(6)Section 69

said concern for a sum of Rs.8,10,000/- and Rs.6,89,775/-. The AO noticed that the assessee had declared meager agricultural income of Rs.29,500/- and Rs.69,275/- respectively in Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. Further, it was noticed the assessee had sold his agricultural land

Shri V Narayana Reddy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 663/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, CA

Section 234B

income of Rs. 4,13,10,675/-/- as against Rs.Nil returned by the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. Taxation of Agricultural Income of Rs.51,66,967/- a) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of agricultural income amounting to Rs.51,66,967/- made ... case. d) Without prejudice, the authorities below ought to have appreciated that ownership of lands is not a prerequisite for claiming exemption of agricultural income under the provisions of the Act and therefore the addition made needs to be deleted in the interest of equity and justice. a) The appellant

Shri V Narayana Reddy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 662/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, CA

Section 234B

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(3)(4), Bangalore vs. Shri Narayana Venkatarama Reddy, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1053/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, CA

Section 234B

Nizar Nooruddin Lalani, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3979/MUM/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2003-04

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

duly confirmed the loan transaction with the assessee. They also brought their income statement wherein they had sufficient 5 Nizar Nooruddin Lalani agricultural income to advance loan to the assessee. However, the ld. AO concluded that the agricultural income reflected in the income statement are inflated by the farmers

Kirtikumar T Doshi (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO, 18(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 556/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 555/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2014-15) Kirtikumar T. Doshi, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant 259, Johari Mansion, 2Nd Floor, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai 400 002. Pan:Aaapd-9244-R बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer-18(2)(1), Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 556/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2014-15) Kirtikumar T. Doshi(Huf) ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant 259, Johari Mansion, 2Nd Floor, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai 400 002. Pan: Aaehk-0147-A बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer-18(2)(1), Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri B.N.RaoFor Respondent: Shri Shankar

Section 2(41)Section 40A(2)(b)

Authorized Representative for the assessee further submitted that in assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.85,000/- declared by the assessee as agricultural income exempt from tax. The Assessing Officer held the agricultural income declared by the assessee as ‘Income from Other Sources’. Against the additions made ... No.1 of the appeal is allowed. 7. In ground No.2 of appeal the Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.85,000/- on account of agricultural income. The assessee has not been able to show any documentary evidence to substantiate that the aforesaid amount was earned by the assessee from agricultural

Kirtikumar T Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO, 18(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 555/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.N.RaoFor Respondent: Shri Shankar

Section 2(41)Section 40A(2)(b)

Sri. Govindappa, Raichur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Raichur

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

ITA 231/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

appellant had opened his bank account only during the demonetization period i.e. on 13/11/2016, had not filed any return for AY 2016-17, no agricultural income has been shown by the assessee in the ITR filed for the year under consideration etc. On the basis of the aforesaid findings ... year 2017-18. 3) Explanation and note on activities and source of income 4) Submission of Copies of ROR ( Phani) for owning and cultivating Agricultural income 5) Submission of Copies of available sale pattis as a proof for having derived agricultural income 6) Agricultural land holding and Crop grown certificate

M/S. Charoen Pokphand Seeds (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 311/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 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 Bijoy Kumar Panda, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order U/S. 263 Dated 30.03.2021 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit, Bengaluru – 2, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Revised 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 10Section 10(1)Section 10ASection 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(1A) 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 was not correct

DCIT Cent.Cir-8(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Farooq Ali Khan, Mumbai

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

ITA 3925/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 153A

ground of unsubstantiated expenses and purchases and Rs. 600,000/for A.Y. 2009-10 on the ground of unsubstantiated expenses and treating agricultural income as income from other sources amounting to Rs 4,00,000. These additions were accepted by the assessee without any further appeal. 8.5 It has been noted

Shri. Manjunath Gunda, Mahalingpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Preethi Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

Section 2

relating to the issue are stated in brief. The assessee filed his return of income declaring a total income of Rs.25,15,780/- and agricultural income of Rs.58,58,889/-. The A.O. noticed from the breakup details of agricultural income given by the assessee that the assessee has sold jaggery ... Rs.6,06,563/- Manjunath Gunda, Mahalingpur Page 2 of 4 and treated the entire sale proceeds as agricultural income. The A.O. held that the sale of jaggery is a business activity and accordingly, opined that the assessee should have determined business income out of the said sale. Accordingly, he proceeded

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1036/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153A

never ceased to put to agricultural purpose. f. Agricultural operations were carried out in the said land by the assessee on his own and agricultural income was admitted up to the impugned AY. g. The assessee never made any plot out of the impugned land and the land was sold ... stoppage of the agricultural activities due to unfavourable conditions, the land cannot be treated as non- agricultural land. k. The assessee had shown the agricultural income, when the agricultural operations were carried on the said land. l. The purpose for which the purchaser used the land cannot be a reason

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1035/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153A