← 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

James Joseph Palackan, Palackal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kottayam

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

ITA 625/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Years: 2015-16 James Joseph Palackan .......... Appellant Palco Constructions, Palackal, Vaikom Kottayam 686140 [Pan: Aeupp8573P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kottayam .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri C.J. Romid, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.11.2025 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 07.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Executing Civil Contracts. The Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed On 29.06.2016 Declaring Income Of Rs. 2,97,440/- & Also Agricultural Income Of Rs. 30,00,000/-. The Same Was Revised On 24.01.2018 Showing Agricultural Income Of Rs. 1,00,000/- Only. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kottayam (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 31.12.2018

For Appellant: Shri C.J. Romid, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

executing civil contracts. The return of income for AY 2016-17 was filed on 29.06.2016 declaring income of Rs. 2,97,440/- and also agricultural income of Rs. 30,00,000/-. The same was revised on 24.01.2018 showing agricultural income of Rs. 1,00,000/- only. Against the said return ... Palackan passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 32,90,310/- disbelieving the agricultural income of Rs. 30,00,000/- by holding that the appellant had failed to substantiate deriving of agricultural income of Rs. 30,00.000/-. 3. Being

James Joseph Palackan, Palackal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kottayam

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

ITA 624/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Years: 2015-16 James Joseph Palackan .......... Appellant Palco Constructions, Palackal, Vaikom Kottayam 686140 [Pan: Aeupp8573P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kottayam .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri C.J. Romid, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.11.2025 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 07.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Executing Civil Contracts. The Return Of Income For Ay 2015-16 Was Filed On 17.09.2015 Declaring Income Of Rs. 2,97,440/- & Also Agricultural Income Of Rs. 34,00,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kottayam (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 18.12.2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income

For Appellant: Shri C.J. Romid, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

executing civil contracts. The return of income for AY 2015-16 was filed on 17.09.2015 declaring income of Rs. 2,97,440/- and also agricultural income of Rs. 34,00,000/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kottayam (hereinafter ... James Joseph Palackan Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 36,97,440/-. While doing so, the AO disbelieved the agricultural income of Rs. 34,00,000/- shown by the appellant for the failure of the appellant to substantiate the agricultural income by filing requisite evidences

Reddy Sampat Vijaya, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1498/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

case. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the A.O. erred in making disallowance of Rs. 4,00,000/- from agricultural income admitted of Rs. 9,00,000/- without there being any incriminating material found during search in the case of the appellant ... have considered the fact that the assessee already provided the patta passbook which shows the assessee is having sufficient landed properties to earn agricultural income of Rs. 9,00,000/-. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that agricultural produce is seasonal in nature and depends

Reddy Sampat Vijaya, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle -1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1497/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

case. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the A.O. erred in making disallowance of Rs. 4,00,000/- from agricultural income admitted of Rs. 9,00,000/- without there being any incriminating material found during search in the case of the appellant ... have considered the fact that the assessee already provided the patta passbook which shows the assessee is having sufficient landed properties to earn agricultural income of Rs. 9,00,000/-. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that agricultural produce is seasonal in nature and depends

Reddy Sampat Vijaya, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle- 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1496/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

case. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the A.O. erred in making disallowance of Rs. 4,00,000/- from agricultural income admitted of Rs. 9,00,000/- without there being any incriminating material found during search in the case of the appellant ... have considered the fact that the assessee already provided the patta passbook which shows the assessee is having sufficient landed properties to earn agricultural income of Rs. 9,00,000/-. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that agricultural produce is seasonal in nature and depends

Mrs. Sisily Jose, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1637/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1637/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri. V.P. Kuriyachan, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 69A

care. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the claim of exemption of Agricultural Income to the extent of Rs.39,81,121/- though the Commissioner Appeals has accepted the contention of the appellant that the agricultural income in the order ... learned CIT(A) failed to substantiate that the agricultural Income attracts the Rule 74 of the Act in his order. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to consider the evidence to produced by the Indian Rübber Board mentioning the produce from the land owned by the assessee is an agricultural

Guljar, Saharanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Saharanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3797/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv [through VC]For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

upholding the additions/ disallowances made by the assessing officer at Rs.19,56,900.00 Page 2 of 10 [A.Y. 2009-10] Guljar Vs ITO alongwith Agriculture Income of Rs.4,93,100.00 as against income declared Agriculture Income of Rs.24,50,000.00. 7. That, the NFAC has erred in upholding the addition ... Rs.19,56,900.00 to the income of the assessee on account of 7) disallowance of agriculture income treated as undisclosed sources U/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was made by the assessing officer, which is highly arbitrary and unjustified. 8. That, the NFAC has erred in not appreciating

Bala Devi, Jaipur Rural vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 1306/JPR/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1306/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2013-14 Smt. Bala Devi Dhani :Kankaraiwali, Saravatpura Gram: Amer, Via: Kalwad, Tehsil: Amer Jaipur 303 706 (Raj) Vs. बनाम The ITO Ward 7(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: CPCPD 3195 L अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Shyam Sunder Jangid, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे/Revenue by: Mrs. Harshi

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sunder Jangid, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Harshita Choudhary, Addl.CIT (DR)
Section 148

sustaining addition of Rs.14,45,240/- without adequate justification and total disregards of the facts that amount of Rs.14,45,240/- represent agricultural income which is exempt from tax and there is no evidence that assessee has earned non-agriculture income liable to levy of tax. 2 SMT. BALA DEVI ... that there was no business income liable to income tax. 5. mentioning erroneous facts that assessee has not tendered any evidence in support of agriculture income and on remand report sent by the AO whereas written submission with evidence of agriculture income in the form of sale proceeds of agriculture

Mohan Lal Bhapta, Shimla vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward Rampur, Rampur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

case are that the assessee, an individual deriving income from pension and horticulture, filed his return declaring total income of Rs.2,73,150/- and agricultural income of Rs.4,83,116/-. 3.1 During scrutiny, the AO noticed cash deposits aggregating to Rs.11,24,000/- during the demonetization period

Shital Nilesh Parakh, Ahilyanagar vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ahilyanagar

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

ITA 182/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shital Nilesh Parakh, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, 1, Main Road, Vambori, Ahilyanagar. Tal. Rahuri, Dist. Ahilyanagar- 413704. Pan : Aptpp5302G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prasad Bhandari Revenue By : Shri Shashank Ojha Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.11.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A)-Nfac Erred In Not Accepting The Agriculture Income Of Rs. 89,50,214 Without Appreciating The Submission Made By The Assessee. Hence, The Impugned Order

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69C

facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in Law, the learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in not accepting the agriculture income of Rs. 89,50,214 without appreciating the submission made by the assessee. Hence, the impugned order 2 may please be set aside and the claim ... income gross agricultural receipt from sale of onions of Rs.89,50,214/- was also disclosed and after claiming expenditure of Rs.18,95,999/- net agricultural income of Rs.70,54,215/- was shown. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS to verify the issue of agricultural income. Statutory notice

Karthickeyan Sathya, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pudukkottai

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

ITA 1738/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1738/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Karthickeyan Sathya, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 29/1, Bahavanendal Allinjiyuendal Ward 1, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai. Tamil Nadu 614 618. [Pan: Cmmps6162D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 40ASection 68

Ground No. 7 raised by the assessee in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition on account of unexplained agricultural income. 12. It is noted that the assessee furnished details of land ownership in vernacular language and placed at page 40 to 47 and true ... purpose of purchase of paddy. Therefore, the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that there was no evidence at all supporting the agricultural income, in our opinion, is not justified. We find no dispute in respect of this also in this regard by the ld. DR. Admittedly, these evidences were

Theeta Chowdayya Nagarathna, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2083/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Ravi Kiran, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that the source of the cash deposits during the demonetization period was of her husband’s agricultural income amounting to Rs.12,32,500/- and unsecured loans received from her cousin amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- and the same had also been disclosed ... regard to the source of the cash deposits due to the fact that the assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of agricultural income derived by her husband. Further, the assessee Theeta Chowdayya Nagarathna, Bangalore Page 3 of 5 had also failed to produce any documentary evidence

Narendra Rupchand Madhani, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4896/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarnarendra Rupchand Madhani V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of 32, Purnima Apartment, 42, बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle – Ridge Road, Walkeshwar, Opp. 5(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Rekha Building, Mumbai– Mumbai – 400051, 400006, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aavpm5613L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 69A

addition of Rs. 2,20,721/- under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of alleged failure to furnish receipts of agricultural income, despite the appellant having duly submitted the copies of receipts evidencing Agricultural Income during the assessment proceedings before the learned AO and more ... when the appellant earned similar agricultural income in the earlier years and has been accepted by the department in the past. (b) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) earned in confirming the action of the AD of treating the agricultural income

Neeraj Sinha, HUF, Patna vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 114/PAT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

against the income declared by the appellant of Rs. 2,05,625.00 as rental income and Rs. 6,15,200.00 as agricultural income. 2. For that the Ld. A.O. has erred in issuing notices u/s 148 and initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act which is ab initio void ... that the Ld. A.O. has also erred, and the appellate authority in confirming the same, in treating the exempted income, agriculture income as unexplained income taxed the same under provisions of the Act. 4. For that the Ld. A.O. also tried to misinform in his Assessment Order by stating

Late Shri Khemraj Patidar (Through Wife and Legal Heir Smt. Bhagwati Patidar), Bhopal vs. Income-Tax Officer, 2(4), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 748/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyaniand**

Section 144Section 2(14)Section 48

rectifying the multiple errors committed by the AO, including: (i) adding the income of third parties to the appellant's income: (ii) treating exempt agricultural income as taxable; (iii) failing to allow statutory deductions such as basic exemptions applicable to super senior citizens, and the cost of acquisition ... notings made by AO in Para 2 of assessment-order, the assessee replied that no ITR was filed since there was only agricultural income. Further, the assessee also replied that the matter belonged to old year and the documents were not available with him. Hence, the assessee requested

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office Barnala vs. Lakhvir Singh, Grain Market, Barnala

ITA 245/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ “ए”, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL

Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(5), Chandigarh vs. Avtar Singh, Village- Kaimbwala

ITA 615/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ “ए”, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL

Sh. Pargat Singh, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward -1, Kaithal

ITA 180/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Navdeep Monga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ “ए”, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL

M/S Yograj Chaudhary, Yamuna Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-5, Yamuna Nagar

ITA 116/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ “ए”, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL

Prameela Porika, Suryapet vs. ACIT., Circle-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 593/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.593/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Prameela Porika Vs. Acit Suryapet Circle 7(1) Pan:Almpp8561C Suryapet (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rakesh Chintagumpula, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Smt. Prameela Porika (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 27.10.2023 For The A.Y 2017-18. Page 1 Of 7

For Appellant: Advocate S. SandhyaFor Respondent: : Shri Rakesh Chintagumpula
Section 270A

Prameela Porika 6) The learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the entire agricultural income of Rs. 12,32,580/- as income taxable u/s 115BBE of the I.T Act 7) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming