“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

Vallabhai Patel Kottapalli, Krishna Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Vijayawada

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

ITA 372/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

Section 143Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

carrying on agriculture on leasehold lands and also on his own land. The assessee submitted that the cash deposits are made out of the agricultural income, and he has no other sources of income. Thereafter, another notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee ... tune of Rs. 11,69,500/- in his three bank accounts as mentioned above. In his reply, the assessee submitted that his net agricultural income from 32.16 acres was Rs. 14,23,260/-. As mentioned by the assessee the sale proceeds of paddy sales were directly credited to his bank

Nakka Kasivisweswara Rao, East Godavari Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 278/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 278/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Nakka Kasivisweswara Rao V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) Income Tax Office #7-155 Aayakar Bhavan Kadiyapulanka Village Veerabhadrapuram Kadiyam Mandal Kambala Cheruvu East Godavari District-533126 Rajahmundry-533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aenpn2596K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.10,26,289 made by the assessing officer u/s 69A of the Act by treating the agricultural income as unexplained money. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 3. The solitary issue that arises for our consideration ... addition of Rs.10,26,289/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] under section 69A of the Act by treating agricultural income as unexplained money. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and is engaged in running a nursery

Dialnet Communications Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 7(3), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7885/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dial Net Communications Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C-31, Ground Floor, Greater Ward-7(3), New Delhi. Kailash, Part-I, Delhi-110048. Pan: Aabcd 5472 D Appellant Respondent

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

carrying on agricultural operations for 27 years, that he had been filing return of income regularly and that the source of income was from agricultural income and interest - 11 - ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 income from bank deposits. These facts were never disputed by the Assessing Officer. 23. After receipt

Dhanya Kumar Jain, Jabalpur vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Jabalpur

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

ITA 173/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Dhanya Kumar Jain V. Ito Ward-2(1) 2719, Nagpur Road, Garha, Income Tax Office, Annexe Tripuri Chowk, Jabalpur- Building, Nagrath Chowk, 482001. Jabalpur-482001. Pan:Awdpj1526D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rahul Bardia, Ca Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 17 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

facts void ab initio and without jurisdiction. 2. That the Ld CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs 10,65,180 against agricultural income shown by the assessee as income from other sources. The assessee has submitted proof of agricultural land holding and also copies of sale bills ... agriculture. 4. That the Ld CIT (A) erred in law and facts of the case in making the double addition as once against the agricultural income disclosed in the return and then against the unexplained source of cash deposited out of sale of agricultural produce. Both the addition made must

Triyugi Narayan Dwiwedi, Rewa vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward - 1, Rewa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 137/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2016-17 Triyugi Narayan Dwivedi V. Income Tax Officer Ward No.03, Bramhan Tola Ward-1 Dhari Khadda, Semariya Distt- Kothi Compound Becides Rewa-486001. Family Court, Rewa- 486001. Pan: Bhbpd4469B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Apoorva Garg, Ca Shri Kng Pillai, Advocate Respondent By: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 17 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Apoorva Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.DR-1

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(b)Section 56Section 69A

Page 3 of 4 Rs.2,65,199/- towards undisclosed cash credits, Rs.10,00,000/- towards unexplained money u/s.69A and Rs.1,18,300/- towards undisclosed agricultural income u/s.56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that sufficient opportunity was not t provided by the Assessing

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 400/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &

Section 115BSection 153ASection 69

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

The appeals of the assessee are disposed off as under :

ITA 399/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &

Section 115BSection 153ASection 69

filed for AY 2012-13 to 2018-19 it has also been noticed that meagre income under the head income from other sources and agricultural income have been declared. Further, in the statement taken u/s 131 of the Act Shri Ram Singh Meena categorically admitted that all the transaction were ... filed for AY 2012-13 to 2018-19 it has also been noticed that meagre income under the head income from other sources and agricultural income have been declared. Further, in the statement taken u/s 131 of the Act Shri Ram Singh Meena categorically admitted that all the transaction were

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &

Section 153ASection 69

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 395/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &

Section 153ASection 69

Machindra Baburao Suke, Pune vs. ITO Ward 5(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the observations made in the order

ITA 1245/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Respondent: Appellant by Shri Amit Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69A

such debtors. Ld. AO failed to find any justification and made addition thereof. Thirdly, ld. AO observed that assessee has claimed to have earned Agricultural Income but against the cash deposit of Rs.1,65,900/-, the income has been declared at Rs.1,80,900/-. Though the assessee submitted 7/12 extract ... aside and the addition of Rs.16,96,240/- is hereby deleted. 11. Last issue is regarding addition of Rs.1,65,900/-. Assessee declared Agricultural income in its return at Rs.1,80,900/- and regarding the cash deposit of Rs.1,65,900/- on 02.12.2016 assessee stated that the said

Sh. Ashok Kumar, Haridwar vs. ITO, Haridwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/DDN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalashok Kumar, Assessment Unit, 19, Sitapur Mazara, Jwalapur, Income Tax Haridwar, Uttarakhand-249407 Vs. Department. Pan-Btupk9604E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pankaj Goel, Adv. Department By Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10271519 Dated 10.04.2025 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Agriculturist Having No Any Other Source Of Income Than Agricultural Income. Since, The Income From Agricultural Operations Is Exempt From Tax, He Was Not Obliged To File The Return Of Income. The Assessing Officer Based On The Information That Assessee Has Deposited A Sum Of Rs.76,00,000/- In Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Initiated Reassessment Proceedings In The Case Of Assessee By Recording Reasons That Income To The Extent Of Rs.76,00,000/- Has Escaped Assessment In The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) Of The Act. Accordingly, Notices U/S 148 Was Issued On 26.03.2022. In Response To Which Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 12.04.2022 Ashok Kumar Vs. Ito Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,00,000/- From Agriculture Activity & Claimed The Same As Exempt From Tax. The Assessing Officer Passed The Reassessment Order Wherein He Has Made The Additions On Account Of Agriculture Income Of Rs.10,00,000/- By Treating The Same As Income From Other Sources & Further Made Additions Of Rs.76,00,000/- Being Cash Deposited During Demonetization As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act. The Ao Further Made Additions Of Rs.2,67,195/- As Against Nil Income Declared Towards Bank Interest.

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

Year 2015-16. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an agriculturist having no any other source of income than agricultural income. Since, the income from agricultural operations is exempt from tax, he was not obliged to file the return of income. The Assessing Officer based ... claimed the same as exempt from tax. The Assessing Officer passed the reassessment order wherein he has made the additions on account of agriculture income of Rs.10,00,000/- by treating the same as income from other sources and further made additions of Rs.76,00,000/- being cash deposited during

Gufaran, Bulandshahr vs. ITO Ward 4(1)(3), Aligarh

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

ITA 178/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Gufaran, Vs. Ito, 567, Mohalla Garhi, Ward-4(1), Chaundherea, District- Aligarh Bulandshahr, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Apjpg1383E Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Garh, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Garh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69A

received a sum of Rs 5,00,000/- as gift in cash from his wife ; Rs 4,00,000/- was received as agricultural income on account of agricultural land given on lease and Rs 2,00,000/- was received by him on sale of popular tree receipts. Accordingly, the Assessee ... wife of Rs. 5 lakhs in cash was rightly rejected by the Learned AO. With regard to Gufarani claim of assessee regarding receipt of agricultural income of Rs 4,00,000/-, the learned CITA noted that the lease deed was executed on a plain paper for cultivation of land given

Jay Singh, Morena vs. ITO-1, Morena

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

ITA 117/AGR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Jay Singh, Vs. Ito, Gram Khaneta, Maharajpur, Ward-1, Morena, Madhya Pradesh Morena (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Cfwps1529H

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

grounds. Jay Singh 4. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is an agriculturalist having only agricultural income. It is not in dispute that the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs 22,01,000/- in his bank account. Since no return

Chandrakant Atmaram Acharya, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, WD 3, Patan

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, with the directions as above

ITA 1355/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 69

submitted that the investment in the property, which has been treated as unexplained by the Department, was made out of his life savings from agricultural income. Since agricultural produce is usually sold in cash, the funds used for the investment were also received and retained in cash. The assessee ... Assessing Chandrakant Atmaram Acharya vs. ITO Asst. Year –2011-12 - 4– Officer for de-novo consideration since the investment was made from exempt agricultural income and is fully explainable. 6. In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(Appeals

Namdhari Seeds, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 802/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 143(3)Section 234D

business On proper appreciation of facts and the law applicable, it will be clear that the income from co-cultivation agreement and is also agricultural income and the same is to be treated agricultural income. 3. In any case, the learned ADDL/JCIT(A) has erred in confirming the calculation ... income from activities from Agricultural Land as done by the Assessing Officer. The recomputation of agricultural income as done being fully erroneous and quite excessive is to be ignored and the computation as given by appellant is to be accepted. 4. The learned Addl/JCIT(A) has erred in confirming that

Sumant Kumar Tiwary HUF, Jamshedpur vs. Income Tax Officer - 3(1), Jamshedpur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 237/RAN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi15 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Where The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed By Upholding The Order Of Ld. Ao Due To Non-Prosecution On Various Dates.

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

declaring total income of Rs. 1,02,000/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS with the reason that large agricultural income in comparison to the total income declared by the assessee. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) and 143(1) of the Act was issued. Since

Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT(Intl. Tax.) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 862/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

passed u/s 147 based on service was also bad in law –Held, yes (In favor of assesee). In the case of A.K. Kochandi&Ors.vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER(1975) 43 CCH 0749 KerHC (1976) 1976 CTR 0072 (KER) : (1977) 110 ITR 0406 held that Assessment—Best judgment assessment—Validity—Notice

Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT(Intl. Tax), Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 861/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

“agricultural income”

Leading authorities on agricultural income

Judgments citing agricultural income

Vallabhai Patel Kottapalli, Krishna Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Vijayawada

Nakka Kasivisweswara Rao, East Godavari Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Rajahmundry

Dialnet Communications Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 7(3), New Delhi

Dhanya Kumar Jain, Jabalpur vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Jabalpur

Triyugi Narayan Dwiwedi, Rewa vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward - 1, Rewa

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

Machindra Baburao Suke, Pune vs. ITO Ward 5(3), Pune

Sh. Ashok Kumar, Haridwar vs. ITO, Haridwar

Gufaran, Bulandshahr vs. ITO Ward 4(1)(3), Aligarh

Jay Singh, Morena vs. ITO-1, Morena

Chandrakant Atmaram Acharya, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, WD 3, Patan

Namdhari Seeds, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2)(1), Bangalore

Sumant Kumar Tiwary HUF, Jamshedpur vs. Income Tax Officer - 3(1), Jamshedpur

Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT(Intl. Tax.) Jaipur, Jaipur

Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT(Intl. Tax), Jaipur