“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

DCIT, CC- 2(1), Blr, Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1027/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

wherein department accepted the returned income of the assessee at Rs.1,85,34,040/- under head Business Income and Rs.1 lakh from agricultural income. The date of search in the case of M/s. Ramaiah Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. was on 23.8.2016 and the assessment . ITA Nos.1027-1028-1296-1297-1286/Bang/2025 Page

Malkiat Singh Dhaliwal, Ferozepur City vs. ITO, Ferozepur Cantt

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/ASR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 239/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Malkiat Singh Dhaliwal S/O Vs. Ito, Joginder Singh 37, Dashmesh Ferozepur. Nagar, Near Baghi Hospital Ferozepur City Punjab. [Pan:-Aalpd0965E] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By None (Adjournment Application) Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

Section 143(3)Section 148

Ravinder Singh, who has separate source of income being a Government contractor. 4. In course of assessment proceedings, the AO accepted the agricultural income of Rs. 1.50 lakhs for the year but added back the balance amount of Rs. 4.02 lakhs as unexplained investment for purchase of land

Sonu Goma Bhangale, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(1) Jalgaon, Jalgaon

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

ITA 2350/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Kawadia (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade,<br>Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

compliance to which, return of income was furnished on 24/07/2017 declaring income of Rs. 1,25,840/- and agricultural income of Rs. 65,00,000/-. The Ld.AO completed the assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 22/12/2017 accepting the returned income. This reassessment order dated ... order dated 30/03/2020 has given directions to the Ld.AO for carrying out necessary verification of the source of alleged cash deposit and claim of agricultural income made by the assessee in the income tax return and accepted by the Ld.AO. In compliance to the directions given by the Ld. PCIT

Kasturi Devi, Etah vs. Income Tax Officer, Etah

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

appeal stands condoned. 3. Brief facts state that Smt. Kasturi Devi enjoys income from sale and purchase of potatoes and garlic(Lahsun), pension income, agricultural income and interest income. She filed her return of income for the assessment year 2020-21 on 31.12.2020, declaring total income at Rs.3 ... found that the assessee claimed large increase in agricultural income at Rs.47,41,469/- in the latest ITR, which was thrice the agricultural income of Rs.14,97,550/- declared in preceding return for A.Y. 2019-20. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued

Deepak Kumar Agrawal S/O Shri Late Ratan Lal Agrawal, Tikamgarh vs. ITO, Tikamgarh

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

ITA 445/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Deepak Kumar Agrawal, Vs. Ito, Ward No. 12, Purani Tikamgarh Tehsil, New Housing Board, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Axapa3069L Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148

bank account maintained by Shri Ratan Lal Agarwal. The source of this cash deposit was explained by the Assessee to emanate out of agricultural income, past family savings and retirement and pension funds received during financial year 2006-07. The Assessee submitted that he owns 20 bighas of agricultural land ... which regularly generates agricultural income. The Assessee had not filed his regular return of income for the assessment year 2012-13. Information was received by the office of the learned AO that there was cash deposit above Rs. 10 lakhs in the savings bank account of the Assessee. Accordingly

Deependra Kumar, Etah vs. ITO, Ward-4(3)(1), Etah

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 331/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

verification, the assessee explained that the cash deposits were sourced from withdrawals made from his savings bank account, Kisan Credit Card (KCC) account, and agricultural income. However, the Assessing Officer noted that no documentary evidence in support of these explanations was furnished. A notice dated 25.03.2019 under Section

Velaga Siva Parvathi, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Vijayawada

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

ITA 443/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 69A

days in filing the appeal. 2. The appellant is a house wife. Her husband, Sri V. Satyanarayana is a farmer and has only agricultural income. He disposed of certain agricultural lands and received sale proceeds in cash. Before the amount could be invested in purchase of another agricultural land

Ajithkumar Singu, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward (International Taxation), Vijayawada

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

ITA 348/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.348/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2021-22) Vs. Ajithkumar Singu The Income Tax Officer Ward (International Taxation) D.No. 8-76-1, Murikipudi Income Tax Office Chilakaluripeta C.R. Building, Annex Ramachandrapuram M.G. Road Guntur – 522626 Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Etxps2554D]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Rs.3,31,022/-. Assessee also claimed exemption under “Double Tax Avoidance Agreement” (in short DTAA”) on salary of Rs.84,00,000/-. Assessee also admitted agricultural income of Rs.3,50,000/- in the return of income filed by him. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify ... accordingly proceeded to add Rs.1,76,84,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Further, Ld. AO also treated a net agricultural income of Rs.3,50,000/- as income from other sources for which the assessee did not have any objections. 3. On being aggrieved

P Chadra Sekhar Reddy, Nellore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Tirupathi

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

ITA 16/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.16/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri P Chandra Sekhar Vs. Acit Reddy Central Circle Nellore Tirupati Pan:Aitpp3592M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca M.V. Prasad राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri P Chandra Sekhar Reddy (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 08.11.2023 For The A.Y 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit (Appeals) Is Erred In Facts & Law While Passing The Order.

For Appellant: CA M.V. PrasadFor Respondent: : Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

income for Assessment Year 2016–17. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 15.05.2018, admitting total income of Rs.12,39,260/- and agricultural income of Rs.2,82,720/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued ... account of unexplained gifts from friends and relatives Thus, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.1,14,67,178/- and agricultural income of Rs.2,82,720/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed

Dhananjay Estate and Reality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 3808/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandhananjay Estate & Reality Vs. Ito Private Limited Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- Cts 40-44, S. V. Road, Goregaon 400 020 (W), Mumbai-400 104. Pan: Aabcd8868M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 263Section 63

admitting the total income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, the case was selected under CASS as limited scrutiny to examine mainly the issue of „Agricultural Income‟. As per the information available with the department, the assessee has claimed large agricultural income in ITR and accordingly, notice ... submissions of the assessee, following facts are noted: (i) The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny to examine the issue of „Agricultural Income”. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was requested to furnish the details of agriculture income during the year under consideration along with the details

Amar Singh, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer (OSD)-1, Faridabad

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6541/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 143(3)

case, the assessee has invited the tribunal’s attention to page-30 in paper book indicating his cash withdrawals of Rs.26.37 lakhs coupled with agricultural income amounting to Rs.9,72,113/- as well as family’s past savings. The fact however remains that he has not been able to plead

Hothi Samat Keshwala, Porbandar vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 2(4), Porbandar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 408/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 408/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Hothi Samat Keshwala Ito, Wd – 2(4), At Visavada, Via Bokhira Porbandar, Vs. Income Tax Office, Nh-8E, Porbanadar – 360575 Porbandar Road, Porbandar-360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Buppk0380P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2025 : 25/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 05.08.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Vide Order 21.10.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 5

that amount was deposited in the bank account, out of past savings, proceeds received from maturity of fixed deposit, loan amount taken from others, agricultural income, the amount re-deposited in the bank account, out of amount withdrawn earlier from Bank for domestic use etc. 7. However, the assessing officer ... assessee received the cash from the bank which was redeposited in the bank account during the demonetization period. Besides, assessee had past savings and agricultural income as a source to deposit the amount in the bank account. Therefore, considering all these facts, the addition made by the assessing officer

Shree Khedut Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd., Bardoli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bardoli

ITA 738/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

members. The entire profits of the sugar factories otherwise taxed in hand of society, but due to this modus operandi, remains exempted as an agriculture income in hands of sugarcane growers. Following facts further lend credence to this modus operandi of the assessee: (i) Assessee has paid additional price included ... price in order to wriggle out from the payment of taxes as profits so distributed are exempt in the hands of sugarcane growers as agricultural income while the assesse society is a pure business entity and not a charitable trust. (vi) That the appellant could not prove that a higher