“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

Karuturi Veera Venkata Ravi Prasad, Kovvur Mandal vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Aayakarbhavan, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 797/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

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

Section 132Section 153A

hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, deriving income from salary, income from other sources, and agricultural income. The assessee filed his original return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 on 25-07-2014, admitting total income ... basis of such evidences, no additions can be made. Further, the assessee and his family members are into the finance business out of their agricultural income, and the same has been offered to tax by his father and also by the assessee HUF. Therefore, once again making additions towards income

Karuturi Veera Venkata Ravi Prasad, Kovvur Mandal vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 796/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 132Section 153A

Karuturi Veera Venkata Ravi Prasad, Kovvur Mandal vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 795/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 153A

Arjun Shetty, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Tps, Circle - 1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 61/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Arjun Shetty, Vs. Ito, 16-6-393/9 Shubha Krishna Building, Ward – Tps, Highland Falnir, Mangalore - 575002. Circle – 1(1), Pan :Ainps5294H Mangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri. Pranav G Ambekar, V. Narendra Sharma, Advocates Revenue By : Shri. Nilanjan Dey,Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025

For Appellant: S/Shri. Pranav G Ambekar, V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Nilanjan Dey,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

CASS. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 23.09.2019 was Page 2 of 16 issued to the assessee to verify the agricultural income of Rs.81,07,685/- and share of profit of Rs.82,41,054/- and subsequently, other statutory notices were issued. Assessee was requested to produce ... survey No. and explain crops grown, the details of crops, books of accounts, bills/vouchers, profit and loss account, etc., with respect of other income / agricultural income on basis of estimation of agricultural income, bills and vouchers for expenditures incurred on agricultural activity etc., were called for. In compliance

DCIT-42(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik, Mumbai

In the result, the cross

ITA 989/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. DR

Section 68

assessee had failed to substantiate the claim of having that the assessee had failed to substantiate the claim of having earned earned agricultural agricultural income. income. The The agricultural agri cultural expenses expenses of of ₹12,09,809/– were also disallowed as unexplained expenditure were also disallowed as unexplained expenditure ... allowed remaining 20,000 is disallowed.” disallowed.” 4.4 As to the alleged agricultural income, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed As to the alleged agricultural income, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed As to the alleged agricultural income, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, holding that the assessee had produced neither

Uday Ghanshyam Naik, Mumbai vs. ITO Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the cross

ITA 1098/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. DR

Section 68

Manto Tingkhaham, Namsangmukh vs. Office of the ITO, Digboi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 161/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was disposed of by order dated 21/03/2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Vide DIN & Order No :ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074803037(1).

Section 10(26)Section 250Section 69A

grounds of appeal are, thus, dismissed.” 2.3 Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds: “That the assessee earned agricultural income from sale of green tea leaves from tea plantation in a leased land measuring 462 bighas situated in Samproo-Pong, Wanu Village, P.O -kanubari, District ... income could not be produced at the time of assessment. Only the Capital gains assessed is taxable. The source of large bank deposits is agricultural income stated here. Hence tax and interest for default may please be recomputed.” 3. Before us, the Ld. DR pointed out the relevant finding from

Shambhu Kuamr Singh, Saharsa vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (4), Saharsa

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

ITA 34/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 34/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Shambhu Kumar Singh,….………....….………Appellant Resident Of Gangjala, Dist. Saharsa, Bihar, Pin Code No. 852201 [Pan:Bjnps7630F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-3(4), Saharsha, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Brisketu Pandey, Advocate & Shri Madan Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 26, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

individual, who filed his return of income on 08.04.2016 declaring total 1 Shambhu Kumar Singh income of Rs.2,57,150/- apart from agricultural income of Rs.11,58,358/-. The assessee was requested to furnish requisite papers/documents in respect of agricultural income under section 133(6) of the Income ... that the assessee did not furnish any concrete details in support of the queries through questionnaire stated pointwise. The ld. Assessing Officer treated the agricultural income of Rs.11,58,358/- as shown by the assessee in his return of income as income from other sources and added back

Ram Prasad Through His Legal Heir Pankaj Goyal, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Bhiwadi, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 738/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: ShriS.L. Poddar, Advocate, (Thru” VC)For Respondent: Shri Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 250

erred in confirming the addition of Rs8,53,650/- out of Rs.15,95,000/- made by the AO by giving credit of agriculture income without considering the submission of the assessee.’’ 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, it is noticed that there is delay of 398 days ... circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in accepting agricultural income only of Rs.7,41,350/- as against disclosed by the assessee at Rs.13,41,350/-‘’ 3.2 To this effect, the ld. DR did not raise

Ram Khilari Meena, Dausa vs. ITO, Dausa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1292/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44A

before hearing of the appeal. 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee – appellant primarily engaged in the agricultural income and is not literate. As there was no Income Tax Return as per provision of section 139 of the Act and there was information ... holdings and narrated about his business activities in "transportation of goods". It was also narrated about the nuclear set-up of his family and agricultural income. It is seen from return of income filed by the assessee for the AY 2019-20, that he has sold an immovable property

Milan Saini, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17Section 250(6)Section 28

whether or not connected with his business, profession or vocation, but does not include any stock-in-trade, etc., personal effects and land yielding agricultural income. The word 'property' is of wide amplitude. Section 12B provides that: (1) the tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head 'Capital

Changela Mohanbhai R HUF, Near Bus Stand vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Samir Jani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee had filed his return of income for assessment year (A.Υ.) 2020-21, on 25.08.2020, declaring total income of Rs.19,29,090/- and agricultural income of Rs.60,87,400/-. This assessee`s case was selected for limited scrutiny under in CASS on the issue of "Large Agricultural Income ... addition was made. The ld. PCIT noted that on perusal of materials available on record, it has been noticed that assessee has shown gross agriculture income of Rs.91,08,490/- and incurred expenses of Rs.30,21,090/- and declared net agriculture income of Rs.60,87,400/- which was shown

Shri Amitkumar Jasvantlal Doshi, Surendranagar vs. The DCIT, Cir.-4 (1) (1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 842/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 842/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) Amitkumar Jasvantlal Doshi Cit(Appeals), Nfac-Delhi, Vs. 16, Ashok Nagar Society, Meghani Road, Dcit, Circ – 4(1)(1), Surendranagar-363001 Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aazpd3668C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Krunal Karia, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Krunal Karia, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and the issue was reported as "Deductions from Income from other Sources" and "Agricultural income". Statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.06.2021 was issued and this was followed by notices u/s 142(1) from ... selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) on issues of "Deduction from Amitkumar J. Doshi Income from Other Sources" and "Agriculture Income". For the Assessment Year-2020-21, the Appellant was a director in Ronak Cotton Private Ltd. wherein assessee had lent funds to the Company

Himabindu Penmatsa, Seethammadhara vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 211/VIZ/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Balakrishnan Sshri Sandeep Singh Karhailhimabindu Penmatsa, 50-1-66/2, Asr Nagar, Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh - 530013 ............... Appellant Pan: Aljpp0714J V/S Income Tax Officer, Infinity Towers, Sankaramatam Road, ……………… Respondent Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 80T

individual and for the year under consideration filed her return of income on 27.08.2014, declaring a total income of Rs.3,60,000/- and agricultural income of Rs.5 Lakh. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and vide order passed under section ... scrutiny assessment proceedings were concluded, disallowing a certain sum of agricultural income and deduction claimed under section 80TTA of the Act. Subsequently, from the assessment record, it was noticed that the assessee purchased a vacant land admeasuring 0.53 cents at Kommadi, Visakhapatnam, for a consideration of Rs. 50 lakh vide

Mr. Abu Zafar Mondal, Bishnupur vs. ITO, Ward 25(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1903/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 250Section 69A

held that the assessee has not been able to file any corroborative evidence to show that there could be accumulation from agricultural income. Regarding the second addition, the Ld. CIT(A) did not believe the assessee and stated that the impugned amount was justifiably brought ... being the amount of deposits made by the Appellant to his Bank Accounts during the demonetization period, which represented the accumulated sales proceeds of Agricultural income of past several years. 2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T (A) was right in confirming the addition

Manisha Kumari, Patna vs. Ward-5(2), Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 286/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.286/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Manisha Kumari…..……………..………. …………………....Appellant 5, Indrapuri, Keshri Nagar, Indrapuri, Patna, Pin-800024. Bihar.. [Pan: Afmpk0739D] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(2), Patna ......…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shikesh Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.11.2024 Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Relating To The Assessment Year 2016–17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Who Filed A Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of ₹2,29,470 For The Assessment Year 2016–17. Based On Information That Income To The Tune Of ₹7,50,000 Had Escaped Assessment, The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons For Reopening The Case & Obtained The Necessary Approval From The Competent Authority. Consequently, Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee. No Return Of Income Was Filed In Response To The Said Notice. Thereafter, Notices Under Section 142(1) Along With

Section 142(1)Section 148

comply with the same. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte under Sections 144 and 147 of the Act, treating the claimed agricultural income of ₹7,50,000 as “income from other sources.” 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Suryan Namboothiry, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Nungambakkam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2019/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Adivarahan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 144

declaring a total income of Rs.21,64,727/- and Rs.20,61,370/- respectively with the aggregate income of Rs.71,72,880/- (including agricultural income of Rs.50,08,150/-) for the A.Y.2017-18 and Rs.74,94,660/- (including agricultural income of Rs.54,33,290/-) for the A.Y.2018-19. The return of income ... selected for ‘Limited Scrutiny’ under CASS to verify the assessee’s claim of large agricultural income. The AO issued various statutory notices on various dates. Since, the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings by not responding to the statutory notices for the A.Y.2017-18, however, the assessee submitted

Suryan Namboothiry, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Nungambakkam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2018/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Adivarahan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 144

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Chitravel Vetrimaran, Chennai

ITA 905/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271D

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Chitravel Vetrimaran, Chennai

ITA 904/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271D