“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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-62(1), Delhi vs. Rajesh Gupta, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4250/DEL/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaru Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Sh. Rajesh Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-62(1), 52, Anand Vihar, Delhi Pitampura, North West, Delhi Pan: Aanpg5093Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Sarthak Gupta, Ar Department By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit(Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee on 23.03.2018. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed return of income on 05.05.2018 declaring income of Rs.1,34,955/- and agricultural income of Rs.2,70,468/-. The assessee filed objections against reopening of assessment on 23.08.2018. The contention of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer

Shivkant Sakharam Mohite, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer War 1(5), Aurangabad

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

ITA 2119/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri<br>Milind Debaje,<br>JCIT<br>(virtual)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

18/07/2019 as invalid return without giving any reason. It is also noticed that in the income tax return assessee has shown the agricultural income of Rs. 15,06,945/- along with interest income of Rs. 1,742/-. In the appeal set from page Nos. 46-55, the assessee has enclosed ... carrying out *denovo* assessment proceedings after duly considering the documents to be filed by the assessee in support of his claim of earning agricultural income and also to explain the source of alleged cash deposits to the satisfaction of the Ld. JAO and thereafter Ld.AO shall decide in accordance with

Ramendra Singh, Kannauj vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(3), Kannauj

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

ITA 53/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ramendra Singh V. The Income Tax Officer Bahadurpur Ward 4(2)(3) Majhigawan Kannauj Kannauj (U.P) Tan/Pan:Gzqps7971P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shvetank Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That Huge Amounts Have Been Credited To The Assessee’S Bank Account No.001311002103008 Maintained With Farrukhabad District Central Co-Operative Bank, Saurikh, Kannauj By Way Of Cash & Credit Entries. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’), Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. However, The Said Notice Was

For Appellant: Shri Shvetank Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R

Section 115BSection 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69ASection 80T

receipts were Rs.38,41,698/- And all cash withdrawal & Payments were Rs.10,27,000/- thus there was Net taxable Income 92,199/- in Expected & Agricultural Income 72,910/- Thus there was no other Income which from mandatory taxability creating for filing ITR. 3. Section 144/142(1) (ex-Parte assessment order

Rameshbhai Popatbhai Dakhra Legal Heir of Popatbhai Virabhai Dakhra, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(3), Surat

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

ITA 170/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.170/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Physical Hearing) Rameshbhai Popatbhai Dakhra Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(3), बनाम/ Legal Heir Of Popatbhai Surat, Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395 Vs. Virabhai Dakhra 001 Plot No.17,Ganesh Row House, Nr. Shyamdham Temple, Sarthana, Jakatnaka, Surat- 395 006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aknpd 3920 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 01/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2025

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Office in making addition of Rs.14,97,000/- by considering the exempt agriculture income as income from other sources. 6. It is therefore prayed that the addition made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned ... case are that the assessee filed the return of income for AY 2017-18 on 06.03.2018 declaring total income at Rs.25,200/- and agricultural income of Rs.14,97,000/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. During assessment proceedings, notices u/s 143(2) ITA No.170/Srt/2025

Ch Veerraju Co, Rajahmundry vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 561/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.561/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ch. Veerraju & Co, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Rajahmundry. Income Tax, Pan: Aacfc8959Q Circle-1, Rajahmundry. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Smt. A. Aruna, Advocate रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 18/11/2025 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 21/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Firm Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 26/08/2025 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 15/04/2021 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The 2 Ch Veerraju & Co Vs. Dcit

For Appellant: Smt. A. Aruna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)

justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 22,67,968/- made by the Assessing Officer by treating the agricultural income as income from other sources.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee firm which is engaged in the business of quarry and crusher maintenance had e-filed its return of income ... fact. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee firm had disclosed in its Profit & Loss Account agricultural income of Rs. 22,67,968/-. On being called upon to substantiate its aforesaid claim of income based on supporting documentary evidence, viz., nature and type

George Thomas, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Kottayam, Kottayam

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

ITA 808/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 George Thomas .......... Appellant Kurissummoottil Mukkalli, Parathodu Edakkunnam, Kottayam 686512 [Pan: Afypt6697M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kottayam .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Prasanth Srinivas Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 19.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Agricultural Income. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 05.01.2021 Declaring Nil Income Showing Agricultural Income Of Rs. 26,00,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Assessment Unit Of Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 23.09.2022 Passed U/S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act At Total Income Of 2 George Thomas Rs. 32,00,000/-. While Doing So, The Ao Brought To Tax The Entire Receipts Shown From Agriculture Of Rs. 32,00,000/- For The Failure Of The Appellant To Discharge The Onus Of Proving He Agricultural Income.

For Appellant: Shri Prasanth SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 144

dated 19.08.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving agricultural income. The return of income for AY 2020-21 was filed on 05.01.2021 declaring Nil income showing agricultural income of Rs. 26,00,000/-. Against the said ... entire receipts shown from agriculture of Rs. 32,00,000/- for the failure of the appellant to discharge the onus of proving he agricultural income. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) with a delay of 774 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning

Anthony Louis, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 2(5) Kochi, Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 751/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Anthony Louis .......... Appellant 40/2096A, B Peevas Triton Marine Drive Kochi 682031 [Pan: Acppl0790F] Vs. Ito, Non Corporae Ward - 2(5), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Stephen George, Ar Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income From Agriculture. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 09.01.2021 Disclosing Nil Income & Declaring Agricultural Income Of Rs. 64,80,620/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Assessment Unit Of Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 21.09.2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income

For Appellant: Shri Stephen George, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

individual deriving income from agriculture. The return of income for AY 2020-21 was filed on 09.01.2021 disclosing Nil income and declaring agricultural income of Rs. 64,80,620/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessment Unit of Income Tax Department (hereinafter called

Nirmala Thomas, Gudalur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ooty

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 672/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.672/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2022-23 Nirmala Thomas Income Tax Officer, No.12/342-A G.V.Estate, Ward-1, Thorapalli, Gudalur, Ooty. Tamil Nadu-643 212 [Pan: Aetpt3435K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S.Girish Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri S.Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 56

Authority. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee took us through brief factual matrix of this case. The case was selected to verify the genuineness of agricultural income disclosed by the assessee. It was noted that the agricultural income disclosed during the year was at variance with figures of preceding years ... assessee had shown total agricultural receipts of Rs.1,95,99,538/- and expenditure of Rs.1,14,61,979/- so as to offer net exempt agricultural income of Rs.81,37,559/-. The Ld.AO observed that there are total credits of Rs.2,90,03,302/- in the bank accounts maintained

Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1235/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1254, 1255, 1258, 1260/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1233, 1235, 1237, 1238 /Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 M/S. Southern Agrifurane- Industries Pvt Ltd Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 250Section 80G

tribunal has found that with regard to cash and jewellery, the explanation of the assessee was that he had agricultural properties and derived agricultural income. That income was utilised to acquire jewellery that was belonging to him and his family. With regard to cash and stated to be recovered from

Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

ITA 1233/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 250Section 80G

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Laveena Jain, Meerut vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(4), Meerut

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5163/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessee was 31.7.2017) declaring income of Rs. 2,60,000/ after claiming deduction chapter under VI-A at Rs. 3,579/- plus agricultural income of Rs. 39,54,450/ Perusal of return reveals that the income of Rs. 2,63,579/- has been shown under the head "Income from other ... under CASS and the notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 11.8.2018 in which the reason for selection was also mentioned as under:- i. "Agricultural income ii. Cash deposit during demonetization period". As per information available with the department, the assessee has cash deposited in her Axis Bank

M/S Ls Contractors Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 30, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly

ITA 2208/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2207 & 2208/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2020-21 बनाम M/S Ls Contractors Dcit, Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-30, H-12, Tropical Building, E-2, Ground Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Aabcl8541R Jhandewalan Extension Karol Bagh, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153CSection 234ASection 270A

interference against the adverse parties.” (v) Similar is the principle enunciated by the Kerala High Court in the case of P.S. Abdul Majid vs. Agricultural Income Tax in 209 ITR 821. The Kerala High Court, while enunciating the principle, followed the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

M/S Ls Contractors Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 30, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly

ITA 2207/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Section 153CSection 234ASection 270A

Pirtpal Singh Brar, Muktsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Muktsar

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

ITA 38/ASR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 208Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69

paper book filed along with an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963, the ld. AR submitted that agricultural income on sale of agricultural produce has been received from one Sohan Lal Vikas Chhabra, (ledger account of the commission agent placed in paper book ... that the assessee and his family members are holding agricultural lands measuring 57.5 acres, on which cultivation takes place, to prove the genuineness of agricultural income. 10. He further argued on the legal aspect of the matter and he pointed out that in the instant case, notices u/148 was never

Jitendrasinh Zala, Jamnagar vs. The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

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

ITA 871/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

relevant to AY 2021-22. However, no such entry was found under liability in the books of accounts of the assessee. (ii)Variation in agriculture income shown in computation of income with the agriculture income declared in the return of income. (iii)No rent income declared from the properties other ... before us. 5 ITA 871/Rjt/24 AY. 2020-21 JITENDRASINH ZALA v. PCIT 10. Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that, first of all, the agricultural income is not taxable, therefore, the findings of the Ld. PCIT that there is loss of revenue, is not acceptable. The Ld. Counsel

Late Chimanlal Jerambhai Bhagat Legal Heir Minaxi Rakeshbhai Kahar, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vapi

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

ITA 45/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.45/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Lt.Chimanlal Jerambhai Bhagat Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, बनाम/ Legal Heir Minaxi Rakeshbhai Vapi -396 191 Vs. Kahar, Flat No.104, Lake Castle, Pal, Nr. Jainam, Surat-395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aclpb 6752 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Mukesh Mandowara, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 54B

assessee has filed a paper book along with additional ground of appeal by submitting that the CIT(A) has erred in upholding agricultural income of Rs.6,20,597/- as nil. He submitted that the legal heir of the assessee could not attend before CIT(A) because the notices were issued

Arun Kumar Gupta, DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat, Adajan vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Adarsh Nagar Society

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 779/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250

finding that the source of funds for acquisition of the shares ITA Nos.778 & 779/SRT/2023/AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera 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

Arun Kumar Gupta, DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat, Adajan vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Adarsh Nagar Society

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 778/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 250

Pavitar Singh, Jagadhri, Yamunanagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 653/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 653/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Pavitar Singh, Ito, बना 188, Vuillage Satgoli, Nwr-W-(65)(95) Bhagu Majra, Chandigarh म Jadadhri, Yamunanagar Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bteps4094J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rachit Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

order which is to the following effect. 4 “5.2.2. In addition to the above arguments, the appellant has submitted a bank statement, proof for agricultural income and statement of commodities transaction. The appellant claims that he is an agriculturist and income from agricultural operations is the only source of income ... appellant has submitted 4 bills in support of claim of agricultural income. The bills pertain to FY 2010-11 and cumulatively the agricultural receipts in these 4 bills amount to Rs.2,20,604/-. These evidences are not relevant for the AY under consideration and the appellant has not moved

Santokh Singh, Amritsar vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Amritsar

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

ITA 28/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 28/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Santokh Singh, H. No. 201, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Village Kot Kotgurbaksh, Amritsar. Amritsar, Punjab [Pan:-Emxps0241A] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv & Sh. V.S. Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 144Section 250Section 282

Year: 2018-19 3. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee is an agriculturist and has filed his return of income disclosing agricultural income of Rs.34.34 lakhs and the case was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of agricultural income. However, in course of assessment proceedings, in absence ... appeal has not been adjudicated on merits. 6. He further submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and has been earning and disclosing agricultural income in all his previous years and the appellate authority as well as the AO before passing an order should have made proper examination and verification