“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

Hanumanthappa Rajappa Mohan, Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chitradurga

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1305/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

that assessee is deriving income from business of selling groceries and also has commission income for sale of agricultural produces. The assessee has also agricultural income. As the assessee has deposited cash into the bank account, the ld. AO found that a sum of Rs.11,52,165 is unexplained money ... held that assessee should have only the cash balance of Rs.15,82,635 as on 31.3.2016. He reached the above sum by considering agricultural income of Rs.3,50,000, cash profit for AY 2016-17 of Rs.4,07,035 and receipt from debtors of Rs.8,25,600. Therefore he made

Dipak Chhaganlal Naik L/H Amitaben Dipak Naik, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 1118/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1118/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Dipak Chhaganlal Naik Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), बनाम/ L/H Amitaben Dipak Naik Surat, Room No. 627, Aaykar Vs. 44, China Gate-2, B/Hgayatri Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 Mandir, Althan S.O, Althan, 001 Surat- 395 017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadhn 5872 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025

Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 2(47)Section 250Section 50CSection 80C

NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on fact to uphold addition of Rs.79,400/- made by the assessment unit by treating agricultural income as unexplained money earned by the appellant, without specifying any section of Income-tax Act. 6. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred

Harshadbhai Maganbhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(3)(2), Surat

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

ITA 111/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.111/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Harshadbhai Maganbhai Patel Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3)(2), बनाम/ C-1007, Pratisha Tower, Surat, Anavil Business Center, Vs. Sarela Wadi, Ghod-Dod Road, Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat- 395 007 Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adgpp 3387 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025

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

capital asset. Further, assessee had not furnished any supporting evidence to prove that agricultural activity was carried out on the said land. Besides, no agricultural income was declared in the return of income by the assessee. Hence, the amount of Rs.1,65,37,512/- claimed as exempt was disallowed

Spandana Sphoorty Financial Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle 3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 821/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 69A

consider the remarks provided by the person and seek relevant information (e.g. records of land-holding and other relevant evidences etc. in case of agricultural income), to form appropriate view and quantify unexplained income. 3. Cash withdrawn out of bank account 3.1 The AO needs to consider the remarks provided

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Tirupati vs. Venkata Swamy Ravuri, Chittoor

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for

ITA 257/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Advocate Sashank Dundu

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 68

facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred by accepting the Form IB as a proof of agricultural income of Rs 5,50,280/-, Whereas the same is only a proof of agricultural holding and does not substantiate the assessee claim of agricultural income without production ... Nos.3 and 4 raised by the Revenue pertain to the deletion of addition of Rs.5,50,280/- made by Ld. AO by treating the agricultural income as income from other sources. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee had shown agricultural income of Rs.5

Razak Rowther Mohamed Saleem, Dindigul vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dindigul

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

ITA 1731/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1731/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Razak Rowther Mohamed Saleem, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 29A, Manthinapalli Vasal Street, Ward 1, Batlagundu Road, Begampur, Dindigul. Dindigul 624 002. [Pan:Acfpm9762L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. S. Vidya, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Raised 3 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidya, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2

only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is 2 I.T.A. No.1731/Chny/25 justified in confirming the disallowance of agricultural income in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We note that the assessee filed his return of income ... admitting total income of ₹.7,65,160/- and agricultural income of ₹.85,84,619/-. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961[“Act” in short]. The case was subsequently selected for "Limited scrutiny" under CASS and notice under section

Shri Baljinder Singh Chahal, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Amritsar

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 282/ASR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 282/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Baljinder Singh Chahal Ito S/O Shri Natha Singh Ward-4(1) / Now Ward2(1) बनाम Village Ramanchack, Po-Dhulka Amritsar (Punjab) - 143001 / Vs. Teh. Baba Bakala Amritsar (Punjab) -143111 "ायी लेखा सं./Pan. Ahlpc-4755-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Daljit Singh Marwaha (Ca)- Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Charan Dass (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Daljit Singh Marwaha (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

assessment order, it is quite clear that the assessee made investment of Rs.35 Lacs against which Ld. AO gave benefit of Rs.11 Lacs of agricultural income and sought addition of Rs.24 Lacs in the hands of the assessee. However, in the computation sheet, the said figure was erroneously taken

Thakorbhai Vasantbhai Patel, Bharuch, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)- Bharuch, Bharuch, Gujarat

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1070/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1070/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Thakorbhai Vasantbhai Patel Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3) बनाम/ A-28, Punit Society, Near Bharuch, 1St Floor, Station Road, Vs. Civil Road, Bharuch-392 001 Near Panchwati Chowk, Bharuch- 356 069 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Akcpp 0669 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 16/10/2025

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

NFAC has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.15,45,424/- u/s.69A of the Act despite the fact that appellant has proved sources of agricultural income by producing agriculture income related evidences, i.e., 7/12 and 8A as also sale bills of agriculture produce. ITA No.1070/Srt/2024 A.Y 17-18 Thakorbhai ... same, it was submitted by the assessee that he is an agriculturist and source of the aforesaid cash deposited was from his agricultural income. In order to substantiate his claim, the assessee had furnished the copy of 7/12 and 8A, being proof of having agricultural land. Besides, the assessee

Debasish Banerjee, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 40(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1212/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)

agriculturists and did not have any bank accounts, PAN or email ids. However, the Assessing Officer denied the exemption claimed by the assessee as agricultural income of Rs.73,20,800/- treating the same as business income and also disallowed an expense of Rs.32,50,770/- incurred by the assessee

Manjar Discretionary Family Trust, Rajkot vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(1), Rajkot

ITA 164/RJT/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

Section 143(1)Section 164Section 244A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोटन्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTNT

Mohan Lal Yadav, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward -1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1223/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1223/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Mohan Lal Yadav Vs. The ITO C/o Shri R.S. Poonia, CA Ward 1(1) D-82-B, Siwad Area, Krishna Marg Jaipur Bapu Nagar, Jaipur - 302015 स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं. / PAN/GIR No.: ARMPY 7388Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Ms. Payal Jhorar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Ga

For Appellant: Ms. Payal Jhorar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 69A

case the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition Rs. 1,41,200/- u/s 69A on agricultural income. Kindly delete the same. 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, it is noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee was filed ... Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2014-15. The case revolves around short term capital gains and denial of claim of agricultural income. The Assessing Officer issued multiple statutory notices under Sections 148, 142(1), and 144 of the Act, to which the appellant failed to respond

Bhawna Puri, Mandi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Mandi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above terms

ITA 978/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 68

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed her return declaring income of Rs.5,21,950/- and agricultural income of Rs.5,50,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS on account of substantial cash deposits of Rs.47.89 lakh during the demonetization period ... family orchard. The Assessing Officer examined the material and accepted Rs.11,73,028/- as explained, comprising Rs.4,00,000/- gifts, Rs.2,72,528/- agricultural income, and Rs.5,00,000/- as household and tuition receipts, but treated the balance Rs.36,16,472/- as unexplained and added the same

Bhupendrabhai Bhikhabhai Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Anand

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

ITA 1005/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Rs.1,75,000/- as commission income under "income from other sources.” The total income was thus assessed at Rs.29,09,710/-, including agricultural income of Rs.1,72,560/- for rate purposes, and penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were also initiated for concealment of income. 5. In appeal

Harshadkumar Hargovandas Patel, Kalol vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Mehsana

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

ITA 125/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 55A

created merely to inflate the cost of improvement and reduce taxable gain. The explanation of the assessee that the expenses were incurred out of agricultural income was also rejected as no documentary proof of such agricultural income was submitted. The Assessing Officer, after giving ample opportunities to the assessee, held

Hoshiyari, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rewari

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

ITA 5864/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Hoshiyari C/O Anu Jain & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Company, 272 R, First Floor, Ward-1, Near Palika Complex, Model Rewari. Town, Rewari (Haryana) Pin: 123 401 Pan :Bmdpd2079Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250Section 54

Submissions 3. It is humbly submitted that Agricultural Land was always outside the purview of central legislation which includes Income Tax Act and so agricultural income was never included as taxable under Income Tax Act. Central Government on account of urbanization found that nature of agricultural land has been changed

Lovely Rani Constructions Private Limited, Patna Bihar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Patna

In the result, ITA Nos.233-235/PAT/2024, ITA Nos

ITA 267/PAT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna14 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.233, 234 & 235/Pat/2024 & Saroj Bala, Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Patna 101, Ramayan Apartment, New Dakbaglow Road, Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aaspb 3828 P & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.267/Pat/24 & Ita Nos.279, 282 & 283/Pat/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / A.Yrs : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2018-19) & Cross Objection No.02/Pat/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.295/Pat/2023) (Assessment Year : 2012-2013) Lovely Rani Constructions Pvt Ltd Vs Acit, Circle-1, Patna 301, Raj Krishna Apartment, East Boring Canal Road, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aabcl 8329 H & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.295/Pat/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / A.Yrs : 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-1, Patna Vs Lovely Rani Constructions Pvt Ltd 301, Raj Krishna Apartment, East Boring Canal Road, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aabcl 8329 H & आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.272, 273, 274, 275, 276 & 278/Pat/2023 (A.Yrs : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2018-19) Murlidhar Prasad, Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Patna 101, Ramayan Apartment, New Dakbaglow Road, Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aekpp 1361 D

For Appellant: Shri Prince Chugh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

common. The assessee filed a voluntary return of income on 29.08.2019 declaring total income at Rs.2,96,330/-. Besides the assessee has declared the agricultural income also of Rs.7,15,600/-. The AO treated the said agricultural income to be not acceptable and treated the same as unexplained u/s.69A ... activities were being carried out on the aforesaid land. 27. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee was consistently showing the agricultural income from the assessment year 2011-2012 onwards in the return of income. It was submitted that AY 2012-13 was reopened

Saroj Bala, Patna vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna

ITA 235/PAT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna14 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.233, 234 & 235/Pat/2024 &

For Appellant: Shri Prince Chugh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

आयकरअप}ीयअधिकरण,पटनान्यायपीठ,पटना IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH”, PATNA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Saroj Bala, Patna vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna

In the result, ITA Nos.233-235/PAT/2024, ITA Nos

ITA 234/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Prince Chugh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

Saroj Bala, Patna vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna

In the result, ITA Nos.233-235/PAT/2024, ITA Nos

ITA 233/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.233, 234 & 235/Pat/2024 &

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

only issue raised by the assessee is against confirmation of addition of Rs.7,15,600/- as made by the AO treating the agricultural income as unexplained income u/s.69A of the Act and bringing to tax @60% u/s.115BBE of the Act. 25. Facts in the present case have already been discussed ... common. The assessee filed a voluntary return of income on 29.08.2019 declaring total income at Rs.2,96,330/-. Besides the assessee has declared the agricultural income also of Rs.7,15,600/-. The AO treated the said agricultural income to be not acceptable and treated the same as unexplained u/s.69A

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Patna, Patna vs. Lovely Rani Construction Private Ltd, Patna

In the result, ITA Nos.233-235/PAT/2024, ITA Nos

ITA 295/PAT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna14 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.233, 234 & 235/Pat/2024 &

For Appellant: Shri Prince Chugh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A