“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

Jaswant Singh, Yamuna Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 3, Yamunanagar, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 701/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.701/Chd/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11. बनाम Jaswant Singh The Ito, C/O Rajiv Goel & Ward 3, Associates, 179, Bank Red Cross, Sector 17, Road, Huda, Jagadhri, Ambala Cantt. 133001. Haryana. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No. Dcgps3184C अपीलाथ"/Appellant !थ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) िनधा""रतीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Sh. Dhruv Goel,C.A. राज&कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh.Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit. (Sr. Dr.) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28-05-2025 उदघोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21-08-2025 आदेश/Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19-04-2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Sh. Dhruv Goel,C.AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT. (Sr. DR.)

Yamunanagar. 3 with his family members (father and brothers) owned 60 acres of agricultural land. That the amount in question was deposited out of agricultural income on sale of wheat, paddy and sugar cane produce. Further, the assessee during the year also sold poplar trees, with the total income ... from his bank account which was re-deposited. That the total deposit during the year of Rs. 43,35,039/- was out of agricultural income and out of re-deposit of the amount withdrawn earlier. Learned counsel, in this respect, placed reliance on the cash flow statement

Jinnagara Eraiah Lakshmidevi, Bengaluru vs. ITO Ward 5(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1384/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sri Suresh Muthukrishnan, CA

Section 250(6)

been deposited in cash during the demonetization period. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the source of this cash was agricultural income earned by the assessee. Further, it has been pointed out that the evidence in support of the agricultural claim has not been properly appreciated

Krishnamurthy Rangappa, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 1308/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19 Krishnamurthy Rangappa, Income Tax Officer, 2, Manjunatha Nilaya, Ward-4(1)(1), Little Flower Hospital, R.M. Nagar, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore-560016. Pan No : Agppr2719C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Pranav Krishna – Advocate Respondent By : Sri Balusamy N - Jcit Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Appeal Filed By Krishnamurthy Rangappa Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For Asst Year 2018-19 On 18/03/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 09/04/2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sri Pranav Krishna – AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N - JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250

facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC ought to have appreciated that on the merits of the case, the agricultural income declared in the return of income of Rs. 55,00,000/- is itself treated as income from other sources and added back

Boppana Ashok Kumar, Gannavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

ITA 392/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Appeals) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.28,44,127 made by the assessing officer u/s 68 of the Act by considering the agricultural income as unexplained. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed ... assessment under Section 143(2) of the Act. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that the assessee had disclosed gross agricultural income of Rs.28,44,127/- in his return of income for the year under consideration. However, the A.O. observed that in “Schedule

Muthavarapu Srinivasa Babu, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 465/VIZ/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 465/Viz/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13) Muthavarapu Srinivasa Babu V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 2(1) C/O. Ca M.V. Prasad Cr Buildings, 1St Floor Annex D.No. 60-7-13, Ground Floor M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Siddhartha Nagar, 4Th Lane Andhra Pradesh Vijaywada-520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Abwpm3798A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Mv Prasad, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 143(3)Section 263

income, income from Swarna Gardens (Kalyanamandapam) filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs.7,10,226/- and agricultural income of Rs.7,20,000/-. The, Assessment proceedings were completed on 31.03.2015 under section 143(3) of the Act assessing the total income at Rs.14

Somabhai M Bhoi, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2101/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, DR

Section 148Section 250

activity of farming. He alongwith his brother had sold two agricultural lands during the year. They had no other income other than agricultural income and since they ITA No. 2101/Ahd/2024 [Somabhai M. Bhoi vs. ITO] A.Y. 2018-19 - 3 – were non-filer of return of income living in rural areas ... appeal before us by 165 days. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that being a poor farmer with the only source of income being agricultural income, the assessee would be greatly prejudiced against if the delay is not condoned and addition made to his income by the AO of Rs.63

R V R Nagesh Legal Heir of Late Vengattarayalu Rajan, Kanchipuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward - 22(4), Tambaram

ITA 789/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.789/Chny/2025

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

Jatin, Karnal vs. Assessing Officer, Income Tax Department

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3853/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhita No. 3853/Del/2025 Asstt. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 69A

scrutiny assessment. During the 1 | P a g e course of assessment the assessee the source of said cash deposits are out of agricultural income, salary income and loan taken from persons. The assessee failed to submit satisfactory evidence with respect to the loan received amounting

Gurpal Singh Sidhu, Near Govt School vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Bathinda

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

ITA 9/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Ward-1()2), vs Mohanlal Charmpalal Jain [2019] 111 taxmann.com 67 (SC). 4.1. On merits, it was submitted that the assessee was having only agricultural income and the amount had been deposited in the bank account out of the agricultural produce. It was contended that without considering these replies ... case of Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2) vs. Mohanlal Charmpalal Jain [2019] 111 taxmann.com 67 (SC). 5.4.2 Though the appellant had agriculture income but it does not absolve him form the onus cast on him to explain the nature and source of the cash deposits of Rs.10

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Gvk Jaipur Expressway Pvt Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

ITA 307/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us. Moreover, The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections In Both The

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

deductible while computing total income and are disallowed, as otherwise this would result in double advantage to the assessee. For example when agricultural income itself is exempt from taxation, therefore there is no justification to consider expenditure on agricultural activities in the computation of total income. Thus, provisions of Section

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Gvk Jaipur Expressway Pvt Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

ITA 306/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us. Moreover, The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections In Both The

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Anshuman Sharma, Bikaner vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Bikaner

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 583/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shafi Mohd. Chouhan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Anuradha, Addl. CIT DR

Section 69Section 69A

cash in hand. 5.1 As regards the addition of Rs.1,00,000/-, it was contended that the investment was sourced from past savings and agricultural income. It was explained that, due to the rural background of the assessee and the informal nature of farming transactions, no formal documents, such ... Rs.5,00,000/- or to prove the actual utilisation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards stock purchase. The DR further submitted that the claim of agricultural income was unsubstantiated and unsupported by documentary evidence, such as landholding records, details of agricultural produce, or past income declarations. In such circumstances

Sukhmeet Kaur, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(5), Amritsar

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

ITA 714/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 714/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250

Officer ignoring the facts that cash deposited in saving bank account is totally out of cash in hand, amount received from close relatives and agriculture income required for payment of fees to university. There is no any capital investment made by the assessee. Source of cash deposits are genuine ... work. Cash deposited in saving bank account Rs. 10,41,300/- is totally out of cash in hand, amount received from close relatives and agriculture income required for the payments of fee to university. Source of cash deposits are genuine and verifiable. I.T.A. No. 714/Asr/2024 5 Assessment Year

Jasvir Singh, Budhlada, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Mansa

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 680/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: us. The Ld. AR has sought adjournment whereas Ld. Sr. DR has pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.

For Appellant: Adj. ApplicationFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 147

Rs.30 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment since the assessee could not substantiate the fact that the deposits were sourced out of agricultural income. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has sought adjournment whereas Ld. Sr. DR has pleaded for dismissal

Balraj Singh, Sbs Nagar, Punjab vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Nawanshahar, Nawanshahar, Punjab

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

ITA 483/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Goyal, C.A

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

derives income from agricultural activity and sale of milk. The assessee has filed his return declaring a total income of Rs.1,43,800/- (plus agricultural income of Rs.7,62,000/-). The case was selected under CASS and necessary verification was carried out to enquire into the source of cash deposits ... income for AY 2015-16 to 2017-18 belatedly. During the assessment year 2015-16 to 2018-19 alone, the appellant had declared agricultural income of around 7.5 lakhs to 7.9 lakhs, thereafter in AY 2019-20, 2022-23 & 2023-24, he didn't declare agricultural income at all. Similarly

Shri Abdul Ahad Shah, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 272/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Adj. ApplicationFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 147

Manish Kishorbhai Chopda, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(5), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 288/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 288/Srt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) Manish Kishorbhai Chopda Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(2)(5), B 904, Vrajratna Residency, Nr. Room No. 619, Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Vrajchowk, Sarthana Jakatnaka, Majura Gate, Surat – 395001 Varachha, Surat – 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aitpp 4108 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mayank A. Ogrivala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148

Return of income for A.Y.2007-08 and A.Y.2008-09 the appellant had shown commission income of Rs.7,86,905/- under the head business income and Agricultural income of Rs.5,80.871/- respectively. Therefore, there was no such business activities were identified in the preceding two Assessment Years for justification of claimed business

Narpatsinh Prabhatsinh Solanki, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Surat

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

ITA 129/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, J

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 253(1)Section 254(1)Section 69A

learned ITO failed to understand that the cash deposit were made by the appellant ITA No.129/SRT/2025 (A.Y.11-12) Narpatsinh P Solanki out of agricultural income as well as accumulated savings. As such the deposits are no more unexplained. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well ... total income. The assessee vide his letter dated Nil has submitted the details which consists of copy of bank statements, salary certificate, proof of agricultural income and sale agreement of agricultural land. Assessee has submitted further details such as block wise details, certificate, copies of 7/12 and 8A (related

Avtar Singh Gill, Sirsa vs. DCIT Cir, Panchkula

In the result, the impugned addition of Rs

ITA 488/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Narender Bansal (Advocate) & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

gift of Rs.3 Lacs was received from father-in-law through NEFT and the same was also stated to be sourced out of agricultural income. However, Ld. AO rejected the explanations of the assessee and considered the amount of Rs.6.75 Lacs as the income of the assessee ... moveable asset. Similarly, the gift from father-in-law is through banking channel and the donor is stated to have earned agricultural income. We find that no independent enquiry has been conducted by lower authorities from the donors to fortify their case against the assessee. In the absence

Shri Ganesh Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Limited, Ahmednagar vs. DCIT Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

ITA 119/PUN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.119/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ganesh Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., A/P. Ranjangaon Khurd, Tal.-Rahata, Dist.-Ahmednagar – 413719 Vs. Dcit, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar Pan: Aaeas0636H अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2510, 2511 & 2512/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Shri Ganesh Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., A/P. Ranjangaon Khurd, Tal.-Rahata, Dist.-Ahmednagar – 413719 Vs. Dcit, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar Pan : Aaeas0636H अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hanmant Dattatry Dhavale Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 15-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 20.12.2024 & 25.10.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Years ("Ays”) 2009-10 & 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. Ita No. 2510/Pun/2024 For Ay 2010-11 Is Taken Up As A Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Hanmant Dattatry DhavaleFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 155(19)Section 254Section 40A(2)

account of Agricultural Incоте.” 10.1 We find that the Ld. AO disallowed Rs.1,22,324/- out of the total claim of agricultural income of Rs.2,22,324 based on estimation for the reason that the assessee could not furnish satisfactory evidence in support of its claim