“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

Salvantsingh Swarupsingh Pallu, Vadodara vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 949/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalsalvantsingh Swarupsingh Pallu, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. A1, 204, Mangal Marvel Ward 1(1)(1), Apartment, Tarsali, Vadodara. Vadodara-390009 [Pan : Alqpp 5330 F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sanket Bakshi, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavda, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavda, Sr DR

Section 147Section 250Section 69

unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without properly appreciating the evidences submitted regarding the availability of sources including agricultural Income, past savings, family income, and loan repayments. The learned CIT(A) further erred in upholding such addition without judicial application of mind and in violation ... filed a return of Salvantsingh Swarupsingh Pallu Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 income on 13.11.2019 declaring total income of Rs.1,18,860/- and agricultural income of Rs.1,60,020/- was also declared. The Assessing Officer, during assessment proceedings, noted cash deposits totaling Rs.18,77,600/- in the assessee

Rajeshkumar Natubhai Patel, Piplag Nadiad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Nadiad

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

ITA 1395/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalrajeshkumar Natubhai Patel, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Matru Chhaya, Piplag Ward-5, Chokdi Petlad Road, Piplag, Nadiad. Nadiad-387255. [Pan :Ahppp4940 G]

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Panchal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, said to be engaged in miscellaneous work contracts and trading activities, and also deriving agricultural income. For the AY 2017-18, the assessee did not file the return of income. Based on cash deposits made during the demonetization period

Bala Venkata Katyayani Dasu, Eluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle-1, Rajamahendravaram

ITA 297/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246Section 250

supra) made by the A.O., vide intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, comprised of, viz. (i). agriculture income: Rs. 40,000/-; (ii). short-term capital gain: Rs. 2,02,042/-; and (iii). speculative income: Rs. 58,309/- . Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that ... from short-term capital gain: Rs.2,02,042/- were included by the assessee in his total income. Apart from that, we find that the agriculture income of Rs.40,000/- was also disclosed by the assessee in his “return of income” for rate purposes. The Ld. AR submitted that

Sudharani Surisetty, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 166/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.166/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sudharani Surisetty V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 29-2-34, Opposite Judge Court Flat No. 401, 4Th Floor Main, Dabagardens Prathyakshar Bhawan Prakasharaopeta Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530020 Visakhapatnam – 530020 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Cnbps4046N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparnavilluri, Sr.Ar

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250

submitted that assessee is carrying out the activity of purchase and sale of vegetable & coconuts during the F.Y. 2014-15 and also derives agricultural income about Rs.60,000/- every year. However, did not submit any evidence in support of her claim. Being not satisfied with the submissions of the assessee

Gyan Prakash Tiwari, Rajgarh vs. ITO, Shajapur

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 563/IND/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manish Boradgyan Prakash Tiwari, Income Tax Officer, Talab Mohalla Chhapiheda, Shajapur Vs. Rajgarh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abupt8470C Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Nerkar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Tiwari and Rs. 3,00,000/- which was deposited by the assessee's father Shri Hiralal Tiwari. The source of same was out of agricultural income. AO had added Rs.9,00,000/ as unexplained money, as no satisfactory reply received from appellant. Appellant had not furnished copies of income ... return filed by appellant's father indicating that agricultural income reported to tax. Further, appellant had failed to furnish evidence of agricultural expenses incurred by his father proving that agricultural activities are genuine. Further appellant had submitted that the AO had not accepted the claim of agricultural income

Mohammed Juned Siddiqui, Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 76/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Mohammed Juned Siddiqui, Vs. Dcit/Acit-1, C-84/2, Sarvodaya Nagar, Indira Lucknow New Nagar, Lucknow-226016 Pan: Aqnps6188G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Samrat Chandra Ca & Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 20.11.2024, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao Dated 30.12.2018, Passed Under Section 143(3). The Grounds Of Appeal In Both The Appeals Are As Under: - “1. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed Being Illegal. 2. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition Of Rs.11,38,70,742/- Under The Head Capital Gain, Which Was Exempt U/S 10(37) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Not Allowing The Benefit Of Provision Of Rfctlarr Act, 2013. 3. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of Rs. 11,38,70,742/- Only On The Basis Of Roving Enquiries Without Providing An Opportunity Of Being Heard. 4. Because Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of 6,98,27,344/- Under The Head Capital Gains Being Amount

For Appellant: Sh. Samrat Chandra CA & Ms. GurneetFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 250

noticed, that sundry creditors of Rs.4,00,25,766/- were outstanding on 31.03.2016 and that exempt income of Rs. 5,60,500/- (being agricultural income), had also been disclosed. Accordingly, the assessee was required to explain the sundry creditors of Rs. 4,00,25,766/-, by furnishing supporting evidences like

Yunus Mahemud Patel, Latur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Latur

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 450/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69A

received Rs.13.50 lakh, Assessee must have spent some amount to earn the said income. Assessee has pleaded that the only source of income is Agricultural income. We have also studied the copies of 7/12 extracts filed by Assessee to prove that Assessee have Agricultural income. On perusal of these 7/12 ... maintained by Talati of the Village, it is observed that the land is in the name of four to five persons. It means the Agricultural income also belongs to all these four to five persons. We have already mentioned above that ld.CIT(A) has considered the submission of the assessee

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

In the result, this ground of appeal is

ITA 1850/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Vyankatesh Narayan Kulkarni Ito, Ward – 3(4), Thane 301, Sunflower Tower, Kharkar Ali Road, Vs Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Road Parvati Bhavan, Thane West, No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial Mumbai-400604. Estate, Thane West -400604, [Pan No. Agmpk6406E] Maharashtra. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the additions of Rs. 13,67,404 being agricultural income on the grounds that the appellant did not file the submissions before the AO which is contrary to the facts as the relevant details ... Kulkarni 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that the said agricultural income is exempt from tax. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or vary any of the grounds of appeal before

Herkuldip Singh, Vpo Butari vs. ITO Ward 4(2) Asr, Amritsar

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

ITA 673/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. J. P. Bhatia, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 250

land and also on land owned by his father. Considering the submissions and the Jamabandi records the AO has accepted the agricultural income to the tune of Rs.4 lakhs and has added back the remaining balance of Rs.17.49 lakhs as un-explained and an addition of Rs.4.03 lakhs as salary

Shreesh Kumar Tripathi, Banda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(5), Banda

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

ITA 111/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Shreesh Kumar Tripathi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-44, Avas Vikash Colony Head Ward-2(2)(5), Banda Post-Banda 210001, U.P. Pan:Agrpt7458C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Mamta Pandey, Adv Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.03.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Orders Of The Ito, Ward-2(2)(5), Banda Passed On 22.12.2019, Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “A. Because The Appellant Authority Has Failed To Provide Fair, Real & Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard, In The Form-35 Petitioner Clearly Mentioned That Notices/Communication May Not Be Send On Email Mode. In This Case No Notice For Hearing Has Been Issued In Physical Mode. B. Because The Learned Assessing Officer As Well As Commissioner (Appeals) Has Passed The Order Based On Incorrect Appreciation Of Facts, Leading To An Erroneous Conclusion. C. Because Assessment Order As Well As Order-In-Appeal Has Been Passed In Ex-Parte Manner Without Giving Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. D. Because The Findings Recorded In The Impugned Order Are Contrary To The Material Evidence Available On Record, Resulting In A Flawed Assessment. E. Because Appellant Was Not Aware About The Issuance Of Notices At The Proceedings Stage Because He Got Registered Himself After Order Passed By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Ms. Mamta Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

been deposited out of earlier savings on 1.10.2016 and Rs.2,06,000/- that had been deposited during the demonetization period, was out of agricultural income and retained earnings. Thus, the amounts were fully explained. The ld. CIT(A) issued nine notices to the assessee and it appears that the assessee ... during demonetization period and aggregate of Rs.3,52,500/- during the year arose out of the receipt of Rs.90,000/- from his sister, agricultural income of Rs. 200000/,- earlier savings of Rs.62,500/- and Rs.6,000/- out of retained earnings. Further, it 3 Shreesh Kumar Tripathi

Bhanwarlal Champalal Kanunga, Unjha vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1040/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1040/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Bhanwarlal Champalal Kanunga, The Principal A-43, Old Gunj Bazar, बनाम/ Commissioner Of V/S. Apmc Market Yard, Income Tax, Main Line, Ahmedabad-3, Unjha-384170. Ahmedabad. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acmpk0172H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Parmanand Khatri, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revisional Order Dated 27.03.2025 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit”] Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Whereby The Assessment Order Dated 23.09.2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Bhanwarlal Champalal Kanunga. Vs. Pcit Assessment Year 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Parmanand Khatri, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

individual. For A.Y. 2020-21 he filed the return of income on 19.10.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 63,44,860 and showing exempt agricultural income of Rs. 1,16,77,688. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS inter alia for verification of large agricultural income ... sheet, capital account, ledger accounts of loans and confirmations, copies of bank statements, cash flow statement with evidence of inflow and outflow relatable to agricultural income and expenses, documentary evidence regarding the purchase of agricultural land in October 2016, details and mode of sale of agricultural produce with copies

Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy Kovvury, Gangavathi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Koppal

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

ITA 412/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Srinivasa G &

Section 144

income from the said agricultural activities. The assessee had not filed his return of income for the reason that the income earned are all agricultural income. The assessee Page 2 of 3 not responded to the various notices issued by the AO seeking the details for the cash deposits made ... delay has been occurred. The assessee also filed additional grounds and also enclosed the documents in support of his case that he has received agricultural income and also he was diagnosed with cancer and also enclosed the medical records to show that he is taking treatment. 4. We have considered

Assistant Commissiner of Iincome Tax Circle-2(1), Rajkot vs. Bhawani Industries India LLP, Rajkot

ITA 260/RJT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

Bhawani Industries India LLP ITA Nos.247 to 250/RJT/2024 & Ors. (AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & Ors.) This is bunch of eight

Bhavani Industries India LLP, Rajkot vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Rajkot

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

ITA 256/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

partner by the firm was exempt from tax under rule 24 of the Indian IT Rules, 1922 to the extent of 60% thereof representing agricultural income and was liable to tax only to the extent of 40%. Thus, it is clear that the character of salary paid to the partner

Bhavani Industries India LLP, Rajkot vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Rajkot

ITA 255/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

Bhawani Industries India LLP ITA Nos. 247 to 250/RJT/2024 & Ors. (AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & Ors.) This is bunch of

Bhavani Industries India LLP, Rajkot vs. Addi. CIT, Range-2, Rajkot

ITA 254/RJT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

Bhawani Industries India LLP ITA Nos. 247 to 250/RJT/2024 & Ors. (AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & Ors.) This is bunch of

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajkot vs. Bhawani Industries India LLP, Rajkot

ITA 250/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

Bhawani Industries India LLP ITA Nos. 247 to 250/RJT/2024 & Ors. (AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & Ors.) This is bunch of

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajkot vs. Bhawani Industries India LLP, Rajkot

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

ITA 249/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Rajkot vs. Bhawani Industries India LLP, Rajkot

ITA 248/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

Bhawani Industries India LLP ITA Nos. 247 to 250/RJT/2024 & Ors. (AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & Ors.) This is bunch of

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajkot vs. Bhawani Industries India LLP, Rajkot

ITA 247/RJT/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

Bhawani Industries India LLP ITA Nos. 247 to 250/RJT/2024 & Ors. (AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & Ors.) This is bunch of