“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

Ramachandra M Bhosale, Bijapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Vijayapur

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

ITA 609/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Aaryak G. Kaushik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate –Standing

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

that the cash deposits in the appellant's bank account were duly explained as arising from known sources including retirement benefits, fixed deposit withdrawals, agricultural income, and pension savings. 6. The NFAC, ought to have held that the provisions of section 69A of the Income

Basavanneppa Guledakeri, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Haveri

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

ITA 605/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

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

Section 115BSection 250Section 251Section 253(5)Section 69A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not considering the fact that the appellant is having savings from the agricultural income from earlier years which is the source for cash deposits. 6. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, that the learned Commissioner ... show cause notice, the assessee filed his submissions stating that he is an agriculturist and source of said cash deposits are out of such agricultural income. The assessee had also produced copies of the statements showing cash deposits in bank, cash sales and analysis of month wise cash sales

Sri. Appanna Devarao Sirdeshpande, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 597/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya V. Mudrabettu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate –Standing

Section 143(2)Section 250

facts and circumstances of the case. Sri Appanna Devarao Sirdeshpande Page 2 of 6 3. The Authorities below have failed to appreciate that the agricultural income is earned from sale of trees in the agricultural land under the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant. 4. The Appellant ... Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, being an individual and having income from house property, income from other sources, and agricultural income, filed his return of income for the AY 2020-21 on 07.01.2021 by declaring a total income of Rs. 5,19,510/-. Subsequently, the case

Shri Bhimabhai Karshanbhai Gareja, Fulrama, Tal. Magrol, Dist. Junagadh vs. The ACIT Circle1, Junagadh

In the result, both these appeals (ITA 415 & 416/Rjt/2025 for AY 2017-18) of

ITA 416/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Maheta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 253(3)

being filed on 13.06.2025 and therefore delay of 567 days has taken place. 4. It is submitted that Applicant being a farmer, having an agricultural income as the main source of income for the year under consideration 5. The accountant namely Mukeshkumar J Rathod having Aadhar no 835819275417 was used ... days has taken place. ITA No. 415 & 416/Rjt/2025 Dayabhai K. Gareja 4. It is submitted that Applicant being a farmer, having an agricultural income as the main source of income for the year under consideration. 5. The accountant namely Mukeshkumar J Rathod having Aadhar no 835819275417 was used to advice

Shri Dayabhai Karshanbhai Gareja, Mangrol, District Junagadh vs. The ACIT Circle1, Junagadh

In the result, both these appeals (ITA 415 & 416/Rjt/2025 for AY 2017-18) of

ITA 415/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Maheta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 253(3)

Baldevbhai Vithhakbhai Patel, Pardi vs. ITO, Ward 1, Vapi

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

ITA 582/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Surat12 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Am. Smatpt Sitet Bta No.582/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing)

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 68

assessee filed his return of income on 15.11.2018, declaring net taxable income of Rs.2,20,110/- and net agricultural income of Rs.2,70,000/-. Based on the information available with the Department, the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) noticed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.16

Wahiba Abubkar Mukadam, Ratnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ratnagiri

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1655/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sharad VazeFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari

Section 154Section 250Section 44ASection 56

Rent Nerul Flat 1,54,000 3 Rent from Mukadam Landmark 2,05,700 4 Savings Interest 10,628 5 Agricultural Income 5,00,000 6 Maturity of LIC Policy 2,90,000 7 Gifts from Relatives 5,50,000 Total Rs. 19,28,328 4. Before us, ld. Counsel ... been shown under the head ‘Income from House Property’, Interest income of Rs.10,628/- has been shown under the head ‘Income from other sources, Agricultural Income and Maturity of LIC amounts at Rs.5.00 lakh and Rs.2.90 lakh have been shown 3 Wahida Abubkar Mukadam under the ‘Exempt income’ and lastly

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Bio Green Papers Limited, Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 769/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: For Revenue : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 131

assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that, in the computation of income, the assessee company has claimed exemption of Rs.4,51,75,861/- on agriculture Income. The Assessing Officer called-upon the assessee to furnish documents with reference to the cropping on the land and proof of sale of agricultural ... report submitted by the Income Tax Officer, Srikakulam, the Assessing Officer observed that, the assessee company failed to substantiate the claim of agriculture income with relevant evidences. Further, as per the sworn statement of the Director of the assessee company, he could not identify or produce the farmers for interrogation

Venkateswarlu Chandu, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 43(1), New Delhi

In the result, the instant assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3119/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Venkateswarlu Chandu, Vs. Dcit, Cc-43(1), B-905, Best Paradise, Plot No. 4, New Delhi Bhartiya Cghs, Sector-19, Dwarka, Delhi – 110 075 (Pan: Acdpc4984A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca & Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.04.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Solitary Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Relating To Sustaining Of Addition Of Rs. 9,99,000/- Made By The Ao U/S. 69C Of The Act. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee E-Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 31.10.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Nil. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass & Statutory Notices Were Issued To The Assessee. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Submitted That He Earned An Agriculture Income Of Rs. 23,10,000/- & This Receipt Was Deposited In Cash To Pay For The Bills Of Credit Care In His Bank Located In Delhi. On Perusal Of The Submissions Filed By The Assessee It Was Observed By The Ao That The Assessee Earned Agriculture Income In Cash Nellipudi Village, Andhra Pradesh. In Response To Requisite Notices, Ao Noted

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Jain, CA & Sh. Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 69C

scrutiny through CASS and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessee submitted that he earned an agriculture income of Rs. 23,10,000/- and this receipt was deposited in cash to pay for the bills of credit care in his bank located ... Delhi. On perusal of the submissions filed by the assessee it was observed by the AO that the assessee earned agriculture income in cash Nellipudi Village, Andhra Pradesh. In response to requisite notices, AO noted that assessee explained the agricultural income, but he failed to provide satisfactory reply for credit

Brijesh Kumar Goswami, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(2), Delhi

In the result, the instant assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2415/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13 Brijesh Kumar Goswami, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-305, Majlis Park, Adarsh Ward 36(2), New Dehi Nagar, New Dehi – 110 033 (Pan: Adapg2435L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.02.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Being Individual, Not Having Filed His Income Tax Return For The Ay 2012-13, Simply For The Reason That The Total Income For The Year Was Less Than The Threshold Limit Of Assessment. In The Meanwhile, In Compliance To Notice U/S. 148 Dated 30.3.2019 The Assessee Furnished His Return Of Income, Declaring Taxable Income Of Rs. 13,521/- & Claimed Refund Of Rs. 2,230/-. Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs. 8,60,180/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 13,520/- & Made The Addition Of Rs. 1,09,640/- On Account Of Share Trading Transactions With Mcx & Rs. 71,316/- On Account Of Share Trading With Bse & A Sum Of Rs. 87,584/- As Adhoc Disallowance Of Expenditure Claimed. Besides This, He Has Also Denied The Exemption On Account Of Agricultural Income, Thereby Making

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10(1)Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148

adhoc disallowance of expenditure claimed. Besides this, he has also denied the exemption on account of agricultural income, thereby making additions of Rs. 5,78,120/-. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. None appeared on behalf ... against the assessee. 2 | P a g e 6. As regards addition of Rs. 5,78,120/- made by the AO by treating the agriculture income as income from other sources. It was the contention of the assessee made in the grounds of appeal that lower authorities erred in making

Lalji Yadav, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer- 6(2), Lucknow

ITA 804/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Income Tax Officer-6(2)

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)

deposit in bank account), Rs. 2,00,000/- (on account of deposit in bank account) and Rs.2,25,000/- (being assessee's claim for agricultural income rejected by the Assessing Officer) were made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned

T. Radhakrishnan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-15(3), Chennai

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

ITA 1773/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1773/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri T. Radhakrishnan, The Income Tax Officer, 31, Second Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 15(3), Karpagambal Nagar, Chennai. Kottivakkam, Chennai – 600 041. Pan: Aabpr 8027K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sudarshan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

assessment year 2016-17, the return of income was filed on 08.07.2016, declaring :- 2 -: income of Rs.3,23,119/-. The assessee has also disclosed agricultural income of Rs.8,00,000/- from sale of casuarina trees. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued ... explain the source of cash deposit of Rs.8,00,000/-. The assessee stated that he had sold casuarina trees which was disclosed as agricultural income in the return which is the source of cash deposit. In support of his plea, assessee furnished confirmation letters from Shri Selvaraj and Shri Umapathy

Vyankatesh Narayan Kulkarni, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Range 3(4), Thane

ITA 1849/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vyankatesh Narayan Kulkarni, Ito-3(4), 301 Sunflower Tower, Kharkar Ali Ashar It Part, 6Th Floor, Road No. Vs. Road, Parvati Bhavan, 16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane West-400604. Thane West-400604. Pan No. Agmpk 6406 E Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Dharmesh Shah/Ms. Mitali

Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the additions of Rs. 10,85,690 u/s 68 in respect of agricultural income. Vyankatesh Narayan Kulkarni Vyankatesh Narayan Kulkarni 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 2. On the facts and circumstances ... comprising consultancy income, income from other sources, and agricultural consultancy income, income from other sources, and agricultural consultancy income, income from other sources, and agricultural income. The assessee was also in receipt of salary as a director in income. The assessee was also in receipt of salary as a director

Abhishek Shukla, Raipur vs. ACIT, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.459/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Abhishek Shukla Sadar Bazar, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar, Raipur-493 118 (C.G.) Pan: Awtps6185K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 68

Dena Bank, Sadar Bazar, Bhatapara on 11.07.2019. The reply submitted by the said bank makes it clear that the assessee did have agricultural income to the tune of Rs.18 lacs per 4 Abhishek Shukla Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) annum and on such basis, they had sanctioned ... bank statement, Form-16, Form-26AS and ITRs before the department, and when the A.O himself accepted that the assessee was having agricultural income of Rs.18 lacs per annum, on the basis of which, Dena bank had provided loan to the assessee which is also evident from bank’s reply

Jiteshbhai Ramniklal Nagada, Jamnagar vs. ITO, Ward 2(6), Jamnagar

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

ITA 46/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.39/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Kantaben Ramniklal Nagda Vs. Ito, Wd- 2(6), Jamnagar Flat No. 603, K D Tower, Oswal Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Colony, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar-361004 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agtpn7366D (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 50CSection 56Section 68

Appeals) erred in law as well as fact by confirming by making addition of Rs.2,33,385/- u/s 68 for agricultural income disclosed by appellant for want of supporting documents. 6. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law as well as fact by confirming addition ... Appeals) erred in law as well as fact by confirming by making addition of Rs. 3,06,284/- u/s 68 for agricultural income disclosed by appellant for want of supporting documents. 6. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law as well as fact by confirming addition

Kantaben Ramniklal Nagda, Jamnagar vs. ITO, Ward 2(6), Jamnagar

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

ITA 39/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 50CSection 56Section 68

Ganpat Vasant Randive, Village - Tungat, Taluka - Pandharpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Pandharpur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 1940/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Banis (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, DR (virtual)

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

land situated at village Tungat, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur, Maharashtra and source of the alleged cash deposits of Rs. 10,53,200/- is the agricultural income earned by the assessee during the year as well as accumulated funds from agricultural income. He further submitted that Ld.AO gave a very short ... opportunity may please be granted to go before the learned Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and to furnish the relevant details to show the agricultural income earned by the assessee from 12 acres of agricultural land owned by the assessee and his family. 4. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative

Agri Gold Foods and Farm Products Limited, Vijayawada vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

ITA 2000/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)

company had not submitted any proof that any agricultural operations were actually carried out on the subject land and had also not derived any agricultural income from the same, therefore, the fact remained that it had purchased the subject land in the normal course of its business of trading ... nature of 'trade' or 'business' and income on sale of such land amounted to business profit and income therefrom should not be treated as agricultural income. 11 Agri Gold Foods and Farm Products Limited 5.2.4 The appellant treated profit of Rs.13,26,00,000/- (Rs.23

Anil Kumar Batar, Sikar vs. PCIT-Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 263

ChdTribRevision— Order erroneous or prejudicial to revenue-Overexercise of power— Assessee an individual filed his return declaring income and agricultural income—Case was selected for limited scrutiny for reason that there was a substantial increase in capital during year relevant to assessment year under consideration—AO accepted return filed ... assessment order and accepted return filed by assessee after examining issue regarding increase in capital account as assessee had credited his capital account with agricultural income and capital gain from sale of flat-Assessee has reflected that same in its capital account-Further in response to letter issued

Satyapal Singh Chauhan HUF, Ambala Cantt vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4 Ambala, Income Tax Office, Ambala

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 715/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:- "1. That The Ld. Pcit Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Exercising Revisionary Powers U./S 263. 2. That The Ld. Pcit Has Erred In Law & Facts In Holding That The Case Is Covered Under Clause (1) Of Explanation 2 Of Section 263(1). 3. That Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or To Substitute The Above Grounds Of Appeal Either Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Case." 2. The Facts, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Huf Have Been Filing The Returns Year After Year Disclosing Agricultural Income Besides Normal Rental Income. Agricultural Income Disclosed In The Previous Years & In The Year Under Consideration Is As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

time of hearing of case." 2. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee HUF have been filing the returns year after year disclosing agricultural income besides normal rental income. Agricultural income disclosed in the previous years and in the year under consideration is as under:- Assessment Year Agricultural Income ... page- 1 of the order, it has been mentioned that the case was taken for 'limited scrutiny' under CASS to verify the issue of agricultural income and, thereafter, the detailed questionnaire was issued as per copy placed at pages 35 to 37 of the Paper Book, alongwith Show Cause Notice