← 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

Media Research Users Council, Mumbai vs. ADIT (E) 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6459/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– 1(1) 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent) Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– Range 1 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(e)Section 25

property of the company. The proper approach to the solution of the Question is to concentrate on the plain words of the definition of agricultural income which connects in no uncertain language revenue with the land from which it directly springs and a stray observation in a case which

Media Research Users Council, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (E) RG 1, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7108/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– 1(1) 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent) Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– Range 1 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(e)Section 25

property of the company. The proper approach to the solution of the Question is to concentrate on the plain words of the definition of agricultural income which connects in no uncertain language revenue with the land from which it directly springs and a stray observation in a case which

Mr K. P. Manjunatha Reddy, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 977/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Thirumala Naidu, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Mishra, D.R
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

same was not accepted by the department and there was no any adverse finding by income tax authorities in this regard or agricultural income declared by the assessee not treated as non- agricultural income. Being so, the sale of said land to be considered as agricultural land. Further, he drew ... 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. 4. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and gone

Shri Ushaben H. Ghadia, Mumbai vs. Dyc CIT -CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 618/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 132(1)Section 56(2)Section 68Section 80C

that he could have generated enough surplus, after meeting his own expenses, to give gift to the present assessee. Further no proof of earning agricultural income, like sale of agricultural produce etc. has been furnished by the assessee. In these circumstances the gift given by him to the assessee could ... enquiry was made and the said person has failed to respond. The ld.CIT(A) has also accepted that the said person is having agricultural income and agricultural land. By no stretch of imagination, it can be presumed that people having agricultural income cannot make a small savings to give

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(1), Mysuru vs. Shri. H Omkarappa (HUF), Shivamogga

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2192/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri. H. Omkarappa, (Huf), Ward - 1, #3, A Block, Apmc Yard, Shivamogga Sagar Road, Shivamogga. Pan : Aabhh 1124 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Shri. S. Ramasubramanyam, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Shri. S. Ramasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 40Section 68

brought any material on record to prove that the assesse has any other source of income other than business income and agricultural income therefore, it has to be presumed that the unaccounted deposits have to be treated as turnover and gross profit to be added. He relied on the decision

Puttappa T.K, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 547/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. M.R. Vanaja, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

assessee to prove sources of the capital balance introduced by him. The assessee submitted that he had accumulated balance of his past professional and agricultural income and furnished details. It was submitted that the agricultural operations were looked after by his father in law and brother in law, who handed ... assessee and contended that the advances were given by the assessee in the earlier years out of his savings from professional and agricultural income. However, we notice that the assessing officer has already given credit for the same while examining the sources for the deposit of aggregate amount of Rs.89

Vinod Parasmal Jain, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 3, Thane

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

ITA 1883/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vinod Parasmal Jain, Dcit, Circle 3, Thane, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle 1302/A, Vikas Palms, Dr. Vs. Ambedkar Road, Opp. Civil Industrial Estate, Road No. 16Z, Hospital, Thane(W)-400 604. Thane-400 601 Pan No. Aaopj 9371 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Subhodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR
Section 2(14)

share of land. The assessee claimed that land sold was agriculture in nature and therefore consideration from sale of such a land is agriculture income not taxable and therefore not shown in computation of the income. According to the Assessing Officer, large number of pieces of the land was purchased ... material. The Vinod Parasmal Jain 17 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

Narhari Sanap, Kalyan vs. DCIT CC 1, Thane

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 683/MUM/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm) I.T.A. Nos. 683 To 686/Mum/2020 (Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04,2006-07 & 2007-08) Narhari Sanap Dcit,Cc-1 Vs. 2Nd Floor, Ramkunvar Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor Mansion, Valli Peer Road No.16Z Road, Kalyan-421 301 Wagle Industrial Estate Thane(W)-400 064 Pan : Amtps8944E

Section 132ASection 139Section 153ASection 153BSection 68

issued raised for AY 2007-08 is that ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,11,000/- on account of unproved agricultural income. 2 Narhari Sanap 3. Since the issues are common and connected and the appeals were heard together, these have been consolidated and disposed ... assessee was a Maharashtra state Govt.emloyees who was then working as the Tehsildar of Panvel. The appellant claims to derive income from salary, agricultural income and from other sources. On 27./07/2006, the Anti Corruption bureau (ACB) of Thane carried out a search at the appellant’s office and residential

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result we hold that the learned principal

ITA 737/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

For Appellant: Ms Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263(2)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

compensation for loss of the claim of the appellant ICICI Bank Ltd.; AY 11-12 that the said amount represented compensation for loss of agricultural income. He accepted the entry in the statement of the account filed by the appellant in the absence of any supporting material and without making

Mr. Subhash Hari Gode, Thane vs. ITO Ward 2 (4), Kalyan

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

ITA 1708/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1708/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2015-16) Mr. Subhash Hari Gode बिधम/ Ito, Ward -2(4) Sakhroli Post Atgaon Tal- Kalyan. Vs. Shahapura Dist- Thane- 421301. Pan No: Bllpg0668M

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 153Section 2(14)

sale consideration of property in ITR was less than the sale consideration 3 1769/M/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 reported in Form 26QB and large agricultural income in comparison to total income. Necessary notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee along ... with the family members sold the land of Rs.1,87,50,000/-. The assessee has shown the agricultural income in sum of Rs.37,50,000/-. The assessee was asked to satisfy the status of the land. An amount in sum of Rs.37,50,000/- was the share of assessee which

DCIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1185/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1185/Mum/2009 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Dcit-1(1) बिधम/ M/S. Acc Ltd. Room No.579, Aayakar Cement House, 121, M. K. Vs. Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact1507C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms.Shailja Rai (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Yogesh Thar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.11.2008 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -I Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2003- 04. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - " L. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit (A) Is Right In Directing To Delete The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Unutilized Modvat Credit & Further In Directing To Allow The Relief Of Rs. 12,09,86,528/- Instead Of Rs. 3,21,85,825/-.” A.Y.2003-04 2. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit (A) Is Right In Deleting The Addition In Respect Of Corporation Tax Paid At Saudi Arabia Of Rs. 2,05,75,346/-.”

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Ms.Shailja Rai (DR)
Section 115JSection 154Section 251Section 80H

company, which manufactured and sold sugar, used sugarcane purchased from other cultivators as well as grown in its own farms. It claimed deduction of agricultural income from its total income by valuing the sugarcane grown in its own farms at market value and deducting therefrom the agricultural expenses

Shri K G Rajesh, Chikamagalur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1653/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri V Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153CSection 263

153C was concluded on 10.03.2015 assessing the income at Rs.1,66,72,223/- after making following additions: i) Disallowance of unsubstantiated claim of agricultural income of Rs.13,61,789/-. ii) Unexplained credits to the tune of Rs. 1,52,46,934/- 3. The PCIT perused the records and passed

Dy CIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Mrs. Nitta Vinodkumar Jatiya, Mumbai

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

ITA 95/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(1) Vs. Mrs. Nitta Vinodkumar Room No. 676B, 6Th Jatiya, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1, Pearl Mansion (N), Mk Road, Mumbai – 91, Marine Lines, 400020. Mk Road, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Accpj8343D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Sanjiv Jain. Dr Respondent By : Mr.Snehal Shah. C A. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Sanjiv Jain. DRFor Respondent: Mr.Snehal Shah. C A. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54B

Mumbai has erred in deleting the addition to the extent of 80% with respect to Mrs. Nitta Vinodkumar Jatiya, Mumbai. Agricultural Income, made by Assessing Officer (A0) despite the fact that the AO has disallowed 100% the of Agricultural Income, as claimed by the assessee, after making factual enquiries including ... case was discussed. The Assessing Mrs. Nitta Vinodkumar Jatiya, Mumbai. officer (A.O) find that in the F.Y 2014-15, the assessee has disclosed the agricultural income of Rs. 1,03,02,193/- in the return of income. The assessee has claimed that the income is generated from sale of mango

Shri D.Dasappa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2223/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 80

153C was issued. In response to notice, the assessee flied the return declaring income of Rs. 100/- being income from other sources and agricultural income of Rs. 17,500/-. The ITA Nos.2222 & 2223/Bang/2016 Page 2 of 82 appellant has claimed exemption of long term capital gain on account of transfer ... Consequently notice u/s. 153C was issued to the assessee on 23.7.2013. Assessee filed return on 19.12.2013 declaring Rs.100/- being income from other sources and agricultural income of Rs.17,500/- on 19.12.2013 for AY 2008-09 and Rs.201/- being income from other sources and agricultural income

Shri D.Dasappa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2222/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 80

153C was issued. In response to notice, the assessee flied the return declaring income of Rs. 100/- being income from other sources and agricultural income of Rs. 17,500/-. The ITA Nos.2222 & 2223/Bang/2016 Page 2 of 82 appellant has claimed exemption of long term capital gain on account of transfer ... Consequently notice u/s. 153C was issued to the assessee on 23.7.2013. Assessee filed return on 19.12.2013 declaring Rs.100/- being income from other sources and agricultural income of Rs.17,500/- on 19.12.2013 for AY 2008-09 and Rs.201/- being income from other sources and agricultural income

Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Limited, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru -4, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 668/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 263

examining the issue. An amount of Rs.4,49,194 written off as interest on loan to Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. and write off of agricultural income tax recoverable from Govt. of Karnataka amounting to Rs.2,53,586 and write off of sundry balances amounting to Rs.609 was not properly examined ... there was therefore no prejudice to the Revenue; 18. The learned PCIT failed to appreciate that the amount of Rs.2,53,586/- being agriculture income tax recoverable from Government of Karnataka was written off and hence there was no prejudice to the Revenue; 19. The learned PCIT failed to appreciate

Mahender Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Gurgaon

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 394/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

Validity of addition of Rs3,17,600/- being the cash deposited in bank account out of past savings and agricultural income: 2.1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs3,17,600/- ignoring the documentary ... evidences produced before him towards ownership of agricultural land and earning from cultivation and without appreciating the fact that in the case of exempted agricultural income assessee is not statutorily not liable to disclose the same in the return of income. 2.2. That on the facts and in the circumstances

Mr Sanjay Ganesh Puranik, Thane vs. ITO Ward 3 (3), Thane

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

ITA 8039/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mr. Sanjay Ganesh Puranik, Ito-Ward-3(3), 1, Teredesai Building, Near Bank Vs. 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Road Of Maharashtra, Gokhale Road, No. 162, Nehru Nagar, Wagle Naupada, Ind. Estate, Thane-400602 Thane-400601 Pan No. Agrpp 1849 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Brajendra Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/02/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Brajendra Kumar, DR

ground : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in retaining the addition on agricultural income of ₹23,10,300/- made by the AO.” Mr. Sanjay Ganesh Puranik 2 2. At the outset, we may like to mention that neither ... pass the order after taking into consideration, the evidences and arguments of the assessee for adjudicating the issue of disallowance of agricultural income of ₹29,15,000/-. Accordingly, we set aside by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore the matter back

Billinkote Ramakrishnaiah Jagadeesh, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(2)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 405/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year:2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Hari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 115BSection 68

issues contested in this appeal relate to following additions:- a) Addition made u/s 68 of the Act - Rs.23,00,000/- b) Addition of agricultural income - Rs. 7,33,044/- 5. The assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration declaring a total income of Rs.3 ... unexplained cash credit and levied tax u/s 115BBE of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. The assessee had also declared agricultural income of Rs.7,33,044/-. Since the assessee did not furnish any evidence in support of the claim of agricultural income, the A.O. treated the same

Sohan Lal Sharma, Haldwani vs. ITO, Uttrakhand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 662/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 662/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Sohan Lal Sharma, Vs Income Tax Officer, Tanakpur Road, Amoun, Khatima, Khatima (U.S. Nagar) Uttrakhand Uttrakhand -262308 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Atxps1528K Assessee By : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. DR

Officer as well as the 2 Sohan Lal Sharma learned first appellate authority have erred in principle as well as in law in treating agricultural income as income from other sources merely on suspicion and surmises and without having any adverse material on record.” Long Term Capital Gain: 3. Apropos ... gets remission of Rs.1,54,640/-. The AO is hereby directed to re-compute the Long Term Capital Gains taking this remission into consideration. Agriculture Income: 5. The assessee has disclosed a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- as agriculture income. The fact of ownership of the land