“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

Gajendramurthy Rangappa, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

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

ITA 1583/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1583/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Gajendramurthy Rangappa, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, D. No. 3/207/A-1, Avalapalli, Ward 1, Hosur 635 109. Hosur. [Pan:Bljpg7735F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 69A

Assessing Officer, in the original assessment proceedings, disallowed an amount of ₹.25,68,520/- on account of denial of allowance under the head agricultural income vide scrutiny assessment. The ld. PCIT, while exercising the provisions of section 263 of the Act, held the said assessment order passed under section ... under the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. I find that the Assessing Officer conducted enquiry and found no evidence in claiming the agricultural income and accordingly, disallowed the same and brought the same under the normal tax rate at 30%, but, not under section 115BBE

Mr. Ravindranath Shetty, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Mangaluru

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 51/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

Section 69A

year. The assessee explained that the sum of ₹37,01,000 came from retirement withdrawals and the balance from Page 2 of 4 agricultural income. The Assessing Officer accepted retirement withdrawals only to the extent of ₹33,16,500 and treated the balance of ₹36,43,500 as unexplained money ... when sales are made in local markets. In the absence of confirmation, the AO and ld. CIT(A) wrongly assumed that non-declaration of agricultural income in earlier years meant no agricultural income existed. This is only a doubt but cannot be a conclusive ground to reject the claim. Benefit

Sunil Khadawala Legal Heir of Manhar Khadawala, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 12(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee succeeds on all substantive issues

ITA 4635/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 57

facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT has erred in confirming that the surrender of land is not an "agricultural income" and hence taxable. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT has erred in confirming the compensation ... failed to consider that a part of this land only was sold 2 years ago and Ld.AO has already considered it as agricultural income. Hence the same land cannot be taxed differently in different years. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Veena Mishra Through Nitish Mishra, Patna vs. ACIT, Cent.Cir-1, Patna

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

ITA 152/PAT/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

filed written reply to the questionnaire and other details. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') conducted enquiries to verify the agricultural income claimed by the assessee and accepted the agricultural income to the extent of ₹80,968/-. The income of the I.T.A. No.: 152/PAT/2025 Assessment Year

Giriraj Prasad, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer, Bundi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 603/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vinok Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148wSection 263Section 54F

appeal before or at the time of hearing." 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee is a farmer deriving only agriculture income, hence was not required filed his return of income for the assessment year 2015-16. The case was opened u/s 147 of the Income ... this, notices u/s 148was issued on 26.03.2022. In response, the appellant filed his return on 14.02.2023 declaring total income of Rs.2,91,600 including agriculture income of Rs.2,55,200/-. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued. The assessee submitted his reply and furnished the required documents

Rambabu Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Jaipur

ITA 561/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Id.Cit(A)", On The Observation That Though This Ground Of Appeal Was Part Of Form 35 Filed In Physical Form, However, Due To Technical Glitch The Relevant Ground Was Missing In The Form 35 Electronically Filed. However, Appellant Prays That Such Ground Of Appeal Were Duly Filed As Attachment Alongwith Form 35 Filed Electronically Which Was Omitted To Be Typed In "Form Of Appeal" Inadvertently.

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 145(3)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id.AO in treating agriculture income of Rs. 1.64.75.894/-declared by appellant in his return of income as "Income from other sources. Firstly. Appellant states that agriculture income declared ... confirmed. Ground no.3 of the appellant is dismissed 15. In Ground of appeal no.4the appellant challenged the action of the AO in treating agricultural income of Rs. 1,64,75,894/- shown by the appellant as income from other sources. During the appellate proceedings, appellant has claimed that Mr. Mukesh

Prithiviraj Sayajirao Deshmukh, Sangli vs. ITO, Ward-4, Sangli

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

ITA 1607/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

perused the record placed before us. We note that the assessee is an individual and income of Rs. 23,67,540/- along with agricultural income of Rs.79,55,584/- has been declared in the e-return filed on 19.03.2019 for A.Y. 2018-19. After the case being selected for Limited ... Scrutiny through CASS to verify the Agricultural income valid notices were sent through e-mail. From page 2 of the assessment order, we find that notices were given on 10 occasions but there was no response. It is also noticed that that notices have given during the period from October

Avanasiyappan Eswaran, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Tiruppur

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

ITA 1666/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramachandran, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50CSection 54FSection 54F(4)

disallowance of claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual deriving agricultural income and income from other sources. For the assessment year 2016-17, the return of income was filed on 15.09.2017 declaring income of Rs.1 ... agricultural income of Rs.50,000/-. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 11.08.2018. The assessee had sold an agricultural land and disclosed capital gains thereon in the return filed for the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee had also claimed deduction

Khaja Hussain, Deodurga District, Raichur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Raichur, Karnataka

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

ITA 97/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT

dismissing the impugned grounds of appeal for want of documents. The grounds of appeal of the assessee were on the following issues: i. Agricultural income of ₹ 6,12,810.00 ii. Gift from the son ₹ 5,00,000.00 2.1 The reason for the confirmation given by the learned

Kunvarji Bhachu Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -31(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1191/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Srivastava, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

making an addition under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961('Act') by erroneously treating an amount of Rs.57,39,796/- as Unexplained Agricultural Income without appreciating the facts of the case in the right perspective. 2. The Learned CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the action ... declaring income of Rs 1,00,437/-stated to be from the business of property. He also disclosed exempted agriculture income of Rs 57,39,796/-.During scrutiny, it was noted by the AO that that the assessee had made several cash deposits in the bank accounts claiming them

Yarlagadda Venkanna Choudary, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 364/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble&

Section 132Section 133Section 143(3)

individual filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2021-22 on 31.03.2022 admitting a total income of Rs.89,98,918/- and agricultural income of Rs.1,23,250/-. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act conducted in the Sardar Group of cases on 10.11.2021. During

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam vs. Venkanna Choudary Yarlagadda, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 349/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon'Ble&**

Section 132Section 133Section 143(3)

Channan Singh, Sangrur vs. Jao Income Tax Officer, Ward Sunam, Punjab

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 740/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.740/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Channan Singh Ito Ward Sunam बनाम/ 125, Ward No 7, Koko Majri, Sunam Mata Modi Road, Preet Nagar Vs. Sangrur-148028 Sunam, Sangrur. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Cxups-2467-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) -Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 24-03-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 30-12-2018. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144

added the same to the income of the assessee as unexplained money for want of any evidences as forthcoming from the assessee. The declared agricultural income of Rs.3.50 Lacs was assessed as ‘Nil’ for the same very reason. 3. During first appeal, the assessee’s additional evidences were subjected

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad., Vejalpur vs. Gopalbhai Umarbhai Bharavad, Viramgam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 19/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: The Final Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumbhare, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Hem Chhajed, AR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

present case, the Ld. CIT(A) had exercised this power with respect to the grievance of the assessee on the treatment of agricultural income returned by him, as income from other sources, by the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that as per the provisions of Section ... felt that the consideration of the submissions filed by the appellant, is germane to the correct appreciation of the issue under deliberation, viz., agricultural income. Therefore, the Order passed by the AO u/s. 144 of the Act dated 11/12/20018 is hereby set aside for making fresh assessment, after taking into

Anjanaben Dineshkumar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 671/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148

notices and also filed return in response to the notice u/s. 148 on 01-08-2018 at Rs. 6570/- being interest income and exempt agricultural income. The Assessing Officer observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee made cash deposits amounting to Rs. 49,10,200/- in various banks ... year. The source of such cash deposits being submitted by the assessee is unsecured loans from thirty fellow villagers who lent money from their agricultural income. Out of these thirty lenders, only two lenders advanced loan more than Rs. 2,00,000/- which is through bank channel and the remaining

Talluri Venkata Ramana, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

ITA 991/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144

Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 declaring an income of Rs. 2,14,007/- along with agriculture income of Rs. 22,95,800/-. Thereafter, the case of the 3 Talluri Venkata Ramana assessee was selected for “limited scrutiny” under CASS for verifying ... large agricultural income”. 3. As the notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act by the A.O. could not be served/responded by the assessee, therefore, the A.O. issued summons to him under Section 131 of the Act, dated 21.06.2016. However, the assessee did not respond to the summons issued

Thucanaickenpalayam Marannan Manoharan, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Erode

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

ITA 824/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 824/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Thuckanaickenpalayam Marannan Income Tax Officer, Manoharan, Vs. Ward 2(1), Erode. 144, T.N. Palayam Gobi, Erode – 638 506, Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaipm-5470-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. P.M Kathir, Advocate & Shri. G. Akash , Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. P.M Kathir, Advocate and Shri. G. Akash , AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 69

tune of Rs.56,69,974/-. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that the source for the increase in the capital was the agricultural income of Rs.19,50,148/- and proceeds from sale of turmeric stock of Rs.13,86,890/-. On verification of the ITR filed by the assessee ... this year, the AO found that the net agricultural income shown for this year was Rs.14,52,973/- only and that the value of turmeric stock was not disclosed in the ITR. In response, the assessee submitted that the sale of turmeric stock was omitted to be disclosed

Sivakumar, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward-3. Puducherry, Puducherry

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

ITA 1829/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1829/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sivakumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 54, Main Road, Ariyur, Ward 3, Puducherry 605 102. Puducherry. [Pan:Cxips8770A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate For Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate for Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT

Section 144

assessee is that the assessee’s father was an illiterate, agriculturist and his primary source of income was from agriculture. Out of accumulated agricultural income, sale proceeds of agricultural land and by withdrawing ₹.2,00,000/- from his bank account, the assessee’s father gifted ₹.10,00,000/- in cash ... however, the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) disbelieved the deposit of cash is emanating from sale consideration as well as accumulation of agricultural income. Further, the assessee’s father also confirmed the said deposit is out of sale consideration derived from the sale of his agricultural land

Hardeep Singh Kandola, Ratia vs. ITO, Fatehabad

ITA 456/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Kumar (Advocate) a/w Shri LalitFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal (CIT) a/w Shri Vivek

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263

deposited out of sale of agricultural land for Rs.18.50 Lacs. The assessee furnished all the evidences. Accordingly, returned income of Rs.1.35 Lacs with agricultural income of Rs.26.83 Lacs was accepted by Ld. AO. 3. The assessment was subjected to revision ... acre from cultivation of wheat and Rs.33,000/- per acre form cultivation of paddy. The assessee received sale proceeds of Rs.31.50 Lacs and reflected agricultural income of Rs.26.83 Lacs which was rejected on the ground that an agriculturist has to spend around 60% of the sale proceeds on various agricultural

Hardeep Singh Kandola, Ratia vs. ITO, Fatehabad

ITA 455/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Kumar (Advocate) a/w Shri LalitFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal (CIT) a/w Shri Vivek

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263