← 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

Sh. Suresh Bansal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 833/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

assessment year 2013-14 as against the returned income of Rs. 3, 91, 400/-and Rs. 1.20 Lacs towards agricultural income. 3. Aggrieved by such an addition assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and pleaded that in view of the CBDT instruction No. 1916 dated

Smt. Shobha Sekhari, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1764/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11 Shobha Sekhari, Vs Acit, 448-451, Chinmin Farms, Central Circle-15, Village Satbari, New Delhi. Mehrauli, New Delhi. Pan: Aatps1222M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri H.K. Chaudhary, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.11.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11Th January, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Years 2010-11. 2. Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.46,03,531/- Made By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, 1961 & Upheld By The Cit(A) Is The Only Issued Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The It Act Was Carried Out By The Investigation Wing Of The Department On 11.11.2010 In Tinna Group Of Cases Including The Assessee. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 153A/143(3) Of The Act On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,28,60,948/- Against The Returned Income Of Rs.5,38,413/-. The Addition Was Made On Account Of Capital Gain Of Rs.2,23,03,125/- On Transfer Of A Land Measuring 39 Bighas Situated At Village Rojka Gujjar Distt. Sohna (Haryana). While Doing So, The Ao Rejected The Claim Of This Land As Agricultural Land On Which An Amount Of Rs.29,410/- Was Shown As Agricultural Income. The Assessee Filed Appeal Before The Cit(A) Which Was Dismissed By The Cit(A). The Ao, Thereafter, Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. Rejecting The Various Explanations Given By The Assessee, The Ao Levied Penalty Of Rs.46,03,531/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. In Appeal, The Ld.Cit(A) Upheld The Action Of The Ao.

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

While doing so, the AO rejected the claim of this land as agricultural land on which an amount of Rs.29,410/- was shown as agricultural income. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) which was dismissed by the CIT(A). The AO, thereafter, initiated penalty proceedings

Shekhar Mehta, Fatehabad vs. ITO Ward - 2, Fatehabad

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

ITA 6510/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2009-10 Shekhar Mehta, Vs. Ito, H. No.80A, Model Town, Ward-2, Fatehabad, Fatehabad. Haryana. Pan: Akgpm5739A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2021 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 3rd July, 2009 declaring the total income at Rs.2,97,709/- and agricultural income of Rs.1,28,500/-. It came to the notice of the AO that the assessee is having a bank account with Axis Bank, Fatehabad where

Jagdish, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 1(3), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1619/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Somil AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 54F

total income of the assessee. Accordingly, the A.O. determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.13,60,244/- and agricultural income of Rs.2,32,600/-. 5 ITA.No.1619/Del./2020 Mr. Jagdish, New Delhi. 2.4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action

ITO, Ward- 2, Narnaul vs. Ramesh Chand, Narnaul

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

ITA 4319/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Ito, Sh. Ramesh Chand, Ward-2, M/S Bhaktawar Mal Narnaul, Near Mahavir Bhawani Sahay, Nai Mandi, Chowk, Narnaul, Mahendergarh Road, Haryana. Haryana Pan-Aancp5095N Revenue Assessee Sh. Shiv Swaroop Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By Assessee By Sh. Deepak Agarwal, Adv. Date Of Hearing 28.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 14.10.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am

Section 133(6)

assessee consists of self and his wife only. The assessee resides in his own house and has sufficient ancestral agricultural land. The assessee has agricultural income also. The AO has not brought any evidence on record to justify the estimate of household expenses ... month. The AO did not doubt the explanation given by the assessee that household expenses withdrawn by the assessee and agricultural income are sufficient to maintain the family. It may also be noted here that in preceding AY 2013-14 Ld. CIT(A) considered the same issue in the appellate

Jagroshni (L/H of Late Anant Ram), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 54(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 6087/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Jagroshni (L/H Of Late Anant Ram), Vs. Ito, T-77, Sarai Kale Khan, Ward 54(5), East Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Anwpr8178H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2021 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(viii)

asked the assessee to file the bifurcation of compensation/enhanced compensation and interest on compensation received on compulsory acquisition of land and proof of agricultural income declared in the return. The assessee, in response to the same, submitted that the amount of Rs.74,42,895/- is not actually the agricultural income ... Behlolpur Khaddar. It was submitted that while filing the return for the impugned assessment year, this amount of compensation was wrongly mentioned as agricultural income. He noted that the assessee has also claimed the amount of TDS deducted on this amount of compensation as refund in the revised return

Kapil Mehta, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central)-3, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 533/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: The Assessing Officer

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 263(1)

proceedings that this cash of Rs.2 Crores belonged to his deceased father, Late Sh. Satish Mehta and that the source of this cash was agricultural income of his father which had been duly declared in the father’s return of income for Assessment Year ... also noted that the original return of income of assessee’s father, which was filed on 08.03.2018, did not disclose any agricultural income and the return was revised on 30.03.2018 wherein an amount of Rs.2.05 Crores was mentioned as exempt income. The Ld. Pr. CIT noted that no proper enquiry

Rajesh Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6972/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 123(1)Section 147Section 148

account and the assessee has never stated before any of the authorities that the source of deposit in the bank account is out of agricultural income. 7. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders

Charan Singh, Sonipat vs. ITO Ward - 1, Sonipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1148/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Charan Singh Vs. Ito Vpo Fazilpur District, Ward – 1 Sonipat, Haryana-131 001 Sonipat Pan : Bggps 3426 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Akshat Sharma. Advocate Revenue By Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

Singh wherein he had confirmed the giving of lease rent of Rs.5,70,000/- to the assessee on 14.12.2010 which was out of his agricultural income. He submitted that since the agreement to lease the agricultural land was with his brother, no formal agreement in writing was entered

Shri Bhupinder Kumar Sekhari, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1767/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

addition of Rs.2,32,08,282/- in respect of capital gain earned on transfer of agriculture land and has also erred in considering the agriculture income of Rs 47,060/- as income from other sources without going through the facts, details as well as documentary evidence filed during the course ... Dispute:-As per the assessee, the land in question was an agricultural land. The assessee has been carrying out agricultural operations and earning agricultural income therefrom. Therefore, the said land did not fall within the definition of capital assets as defined

Smt Pooja Sekhari, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1766/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

addition of Rs.2,32,08,282/- in respect of capital gain earned on transfer of agriculture land and has also erred in considering the agriculture income of Rs 47,060/- as income from other sources without going through the facts, details as well as documentary evidence filed during the course ... Dispute:-As per the assessee, the land in question was an agricultural land. The assessee has been carrying out agricultural operations and earning agricultural income therefrom. Therefore, the said land did not fall within the definition of capital assets as defined

Shri Gaurav Sekhari, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1765/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

addition of Rs.2,32,08,282/- in respect of capital gain earned on transfer of agriculture land and has also erred in considering the agriculture income of Rs 47,060/- as income from other sources without going through the facts, details as well as documentary evidence filed during the course ... Dispute:-As per the assessee, the land in question was an agricultural land. The assessee has been carrying out agricultural operations and earning agricultural income therefrom. Therefore, the said land did not fall within the definition of capital assets as defined

Shri Bhupinder Kumar Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5378/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

addition of Rs.2,32,08,282/- in respect of capital gain earned on transfer of agriculture land and has also erred in considering the agriculture income of Rs 47,060/- as income from other sources without going through the facts, details as well as documentary evidence filed during the course ... Dispute:-As per the assessee, the land in question was an agricultural land. The assessee has been carrying out agricultural operations and earning agricultural income therefrom. Therefore, the said land did not fall within the definition of capital assets as defined

Shri Bhupinder Kumar Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5377/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

addition of Rs.2,32,08,282/- in respect of capital gain earned on transfer of agriculture land and has also erred in considering the agriculture income of Rs 47,060/- as income from other sources without going through the facts, details as well as documentary evidence filed during the course ... Dispute:-As per the assessee, the land in question was an agricultural land. The assessee has been carrying out agricultural operations and earning agricultural income therefrom. Therefore, the said land did not fall within the definition of capital assets as defined

M/S. Keerthi International Products Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5375/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

addition of Rs.2,32,08,282/- in respect of capital gain earned on transfer of agriculture land and has also erred in considering the agriculture income of Rs 47,060/- as income from other sources without going through the facts, details as well as documentary evidence filed during the course ... Dispute:-As per the assessee, the land in question was an agricultural land. The assessee has been carrying out agricultural operations and earning agricultural income therefrom. Therefore, the said land did not fall within the definition of capital assets as defined

M/S. Nova Infratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5364/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

addition of Rs.2,32,08,282/- in respect of capital gain earned on transfer of agriculture land and has also erred in considering the agriculture income of Rs 47,060/- as income from other sources without going through the facts, details as well as documentary evidence filed during the course ... Dispute:-As per the assessee, the land in question was an agricultural land. The assessee has been carrying out agricultural operations and earning agricultural income therefrom. Therefore, the said land did not fall within the definition of capital assets as defined

Smt. Shobha Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5362/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

addition of Rs.2,32,08,282/- in respect of capital gain earned on transfer of agriculture land and has also erred in considering the agriculture income of Rs 47,060/- as income from other sources without going through the facts, details as well as documentary evidence filed during the course ... Dispute:-As per the assessee, the land in question was an agricultural land. The assessee has been carrying out agricultural operations and earning agricultural income therefrom. Therefore, the said land did not fall within the definition of capital assets as defined

Smt. Puja Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5361/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

addition of Rs.2,32,08,282/- in respect of capital gain earned on transfer of agriculture land and has also erred in considering the agriculture income of Rs 47,060/- as income from other sources without going through the facts, details as well as documentary evidence filed during the course ... Dispute:-As per the assessee, the land in question was an agricultural land. The assessee has been carrying out agricultural operations and earning agricultural income therefrom. Therefore, the said land did not fall within the definition of capital assets as defined

Smt. Puja Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5360/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

addition of Rs.2,32,08,282/- in respect of capital gain earned on transfer of agriculture land and has also erred in considering the agriculture income of Rs 47,060/- as income from other sources without going through the facts, details as well as documentary evidence filed during the course ... Dispute:-As per the assessee, the land in question was an agricultural land. The assessee has been carrying out agricultural operations and earning agricultural income therefrom. Therefore, the said land did not fall within the definition of capital assets as defined

Sh. Kapil Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5315/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

addition of Rs.2,32,08,282/- in respect of capital gain earned on transfer of agriculture land and has also erred in considering the agriculture income of Rs 47,060/- as income from other sources without going through the facts, details as well as documentary evidence filed during the course ... Dispute:-As per the assessee, the land in question was an agricultural land. The assessee has been carrying out agricultural operations and earning agricultural income therefrom. Therefore, the said land did not fall within the definition of capital assets as defined