“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

Rajbir Singh, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Nakodar

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

ITA 83/ASR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A.R

Section 144Section 147Section 250

five different dates. Thereafter, the addition has 3 I.T.A. No. 83/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 been sustained in absence of any evidence regarding the agricultural income or any other source of income as submitted by the assessee in his grounds of appeal. 4. In course of appeal

Aleykutty George, Idukki vs. ITO, Ward 1 and Tps, Thodupuzha

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

ITA 468/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Aleykutty George .......... Appellant Chemplayil House, Thekkady Road, Kumily P.O., Idukki District, Kerala [Pan: Blqpg 9231 D] Vs. The Assessment Unit .......... Respondent Income Tax Department Appellant By: Ms. Binisha Baby, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Binisha Baby, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR

filed on 10/01/2021 declaring total income of Rs. 6,260/- after claiming exemption of net 2 Alekutty George agricultural income of Rs. 38,05,996/-. The assessee shown agricultural receipt of Rs. 64,06,826/- from cultivation of cardamom against which expenses of Rs. 26,00,830/- were claimed ... balance income was shown as agricultural income 38,05,996/-. Against the said return of income, the AO made addition accepting the agricultural income to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/- and brought to tax the balance amount of Rs. 27,33,394/- as unexplained money of the assessee

Rehabilitation Plantations Limited, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Kollam

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 410/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 10(31)Section 143(3)Section 7A

therefore, Rehabilitation Plantations Ltd. income should be computed applying provisions of rule 7A cannot be accepted as it would not give rise to agricultural income as there was no direct nexus with the business of rubber plantation and provisions of rule 7A have no application. In this regard reliance

Rehabilitation Plantations Limited, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Kollam

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 409/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 10(31)Section 143(3)Section 7A

Kil Kotagiri and Thirumbadi Plantations Ltd, Mukkom vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1), Kozhikode

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 333/COCH/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kil Kotagiri & Thirumbadi Plantations Ltd. .......... Appellant Thirumbadi Estate, Mukkom, Kozhikode 673602 [Pan: Aabct0021G] Vs. Acit, Circle - 2(1), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Viswanathan R.V., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 12.032.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Rubber Plantation. The Return Of Income For Ay 2010-11 Was Filed On 21.09.2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 50,17,678/-. The Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle-2(1), Kozhikode

For Appellant: Shri Viswanathan R.V., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. 108 Taxman 525 wherein it was held that sale of old and unyielding rubber trees cannot give rise to agricultural income and the income should not be computed applying the provisions of rule 7A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The relevant portion of the judgement is extracted

Thomas Cherian, Thane vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Txn

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 776/COCH/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Thomas Cherian .......... Appellant A-2, Happy House, Sector A9, Navi Mumbai Vashi, Thane 400703 [Pan: Apjpc6676G] Vs. Dcit (International Taxation) .......... Respondent Thiruvananthapuram Appellant By: Shri Vardhaman Jain, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50CSection 53C

addition to that, the assessee also produced copies of some returns that showed that he had returned an amount slightly over Rs.1 lakh as agricultural income obtained from the property over many years prior to the sale of the land. The appellant, however, did not produce any other cogent evidence

Kaluram Narayan Bhujbal, Wakad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 9(1) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 242/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Satish NadeFor Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

derives income from business and other sources. He filed his return of income on 2 21.04.2016 declaring total income of Rs.3,00,250/- and agricultural income of Rs.5,50,000/-. On the basis of information available with the department that the assessee has entered into a sale agreement with

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore vs. Ram Battery India Private Limited, Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1167/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1167/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ram Battery India Private Tax, Limited, Central Circle-1, No.406, Perundurai Road, Coimbatore Erode, Tamil Nadu- 638 009. [Pan: Aagcr3898A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Co No.37/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ram Battery India Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of No.406, Perundurai Road, Erode, Income Tax, Tamil Nadu- 638 009. Central Circle-1, [Pan: Aagcr3898A] Coimbatore (अपीलार्थी/Cross Objector/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Ms. R.Anitha, Addl. Cit. : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) For Cross Objector / Respondent सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Is An Appeal (Ita No.1167/Chny/2025) Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)

Section 131Section 133A

failed to produce books of accounts, which may have been maintained during the regular course of business or any other authentic contemporaneous evidence of agricultural income, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the statement under Section 133A cannot be held to be irrelevant material. In our considered view

Writemen Media Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1516/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 153Section 56(2)(viib)

IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Smt. Krushnaba P. Jadeja, Rajkot-Gujarat

ITA 577/RJT/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee, is engaged in the business of finance and also deals in the real estate. The assessee has also shown agricultural income of Rs.40,68,913/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s. 143(2), dated 06.08.2013 of the I.T. Act, was issued ... recorded by the Assessing Officer, all three confirmed the payments and fact of cancellation of agreement and all three had substantial land holdings and agricultural income, the Assessing Officer has nowhere held them to be men of no means and all three have confirmed having executed written agreements

Smt. Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

ITA 572/RJT/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.572/Rjt/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 C.O. R.K. Shukla & Co., 201, 2Nd Floor, Opera Tower, Jawahar Road, Rajkot-360 001 (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.577/Rjt/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Vs. Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja, C.O. R.K. Shukla & Co., Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 201, 2Nd Floor, Opera Tower, Jawahar Road, Rajkot-360001 (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr : 03/06/2025 : 30/07/2025 Per, Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Rajkot, Which In Turn Arise, Out Of A Common Assessment Order, Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Vide Order Dated 17.02.2015.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee, is engaged in the business of finance and also deals in the real estate. The assessee has also shown agricultural income of Rs.40,68,913/-. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s. 143(2), dated 06.08.2013 of the I.T. Act, was issued ... recorded by the Assessing Officer, all three confirmed the payments and fact of cancellation of agreement and all three had substantial land holdings and agricultural income, the Assessing Officer has nowhere held them to be men of no means and all three have confirmed having executed written agreements

Adesh Bhujangrao Nagawade, Shrigonda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahilyanagar

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated herein above

ITA 71/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.71/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

individual engaged in business of sale of land by taking sand auction and income from JCB Rent, Tractor Rent, interest income and Agricultural Income. The assessee e-filed the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 30.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.38,97,610/-. Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) based

Late Bhauso Gunda Patil Legal Heir Shri Shashikant Patil, Tasgaon vs. ITO, Ward 4, Sangli

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

ITA 647/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.647/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Late Bhauso Gunda Patil Legal V The Income Tax Officer, Heir Shri Shashikant Patil, S Ward-4, Sangli. At Post Khatav Brahmanal, Tal-Tasgaon, Maharashtra- 416423. Pan: Apipp7148F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Shri Shashikant Patil As Legal Heir Of Late Bhauso Gunda Patil Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 Dated 26.10.2023, Emanating From Order U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 28.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

made by AO u/s 69A of Rs. 29,12,437 as unexplained money despite the fact that the appellant has withdrawn the amount of agricultural income from his Sangli DCC bank account and redeposited the same in his other bank account and made the investment and appellant

Ganendra Nath Halder, Little Andaman vs. ACIT Circle 3(2), Port Blair

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1620/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1620/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ganendra Nath Halder, Little Andaman………………....Appellant Vivekanandapur Post, Little Andaman Union Territory Of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Andaman & Nicobar Islands-744207. [Pan: Amnph7301J] Vs. Acit Circle-3(2), Port Blair…………………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 29, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.06.2024 Passed By The Cit, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Pune [In Short Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee A Resident Of Little Andaman, Is A Super Senior Citizen Aged 82 Years During The Relevant Assessment Year. He Did Not File A Return Of Income Under Section 139 For A.Y. 2017–18. Based On The Information Available In The Departmental Database & Its Data, It Was Observed That Cash Deposits Of ₹10,00,000 Were Made In The Assessee’S Bank Account—₹5,00,000 Each On 10.11.2016 & 11.11.2016 Respectively. Accordingly Notice Under Section 142(1) Was Issued On 13.03.2018 Through Speed Post, But The Assessee Failed To Respond Or File The Return. Subsequently, The

Section 10(1)Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69

coconuts, and betel nuts. He submitted that the cash deposits were out of agricultural proceeds and accumulated past savings. It is also contended that agricultural income is exempt under the Act, and assessee being a super senior citizen, the assessee was unaware of the procedural requirements. 5. At the time ... upheld the addition made by the AO which is bad in law. The Ld AR reiterated that the source of the cash deposits was agricultural income and past savings. It is pointed out that ₹5,00,000 was later transferred to the assessee’s son-in-law, Mr. Amit Kumar

Raman, Kancheepuram vs. Assessing Officer, Kancheepuram

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

ITA 908/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Arunkumar ManoharanFor Respondent: DR is on leave

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69

account in ‘Indian Bank & Canara Bank’ and filed relevant documents & written submissions to explain the source of deposit in his bank accounts was his agricultural income. The Ld.CIT(A) having acknowledged that the assessee filed bank statements in respect to bank accounts maintained with ‘Indian Bank & Canara Bank’ and also ... Bank’ which fact needs clarification. We find that the assessee has filed several documents to prove the nature and source of cash deposits/SBNs as agricultural income, which fact has not been verified by the AO. From a perusal of the assessment order, it reveals that the AO has passed

Sudarsanam, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 22(6), Tambaram

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 707/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:707/Chny/2025 धनि्धरणवरध/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sudarsanam, The Income-Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 22(6), 68/52. Sithivinayagar Koil St., Vs. Tambaram. Tambaram Sanatorium, Chennai-600 047. [Pan:Btwps-8389-E] (अपील्थ्/Appellant) (प्थ्/Respondent) अपील्थ्कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. M. Karunakaran, Advocate प्थ्कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit. सुनव््कीत्रीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 घोरण्कीत्रीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

individual, filed his return of income on 07.07.2017 for the A.Y. 2017-18 by declaring a total income of Rs.6,19,440/- and an agriculture income of Rs.2,92,92,930/- towards profit on sale of agricultural land. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under CASS ... reason “agriculture income and capital gains / loss on sale of property”. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer (in short ‘AO’) issued statutory notices to the assessee and the assessee submitted the details from time to time. 4. The assessee along with 3 other family members have sold various agricultural lands situate

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. S. Rajendran, Chitharal

ITA 2904/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2903 & 2904/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Madurai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement S.Rajendran, Vs.13-85/42A, Parthittavillai Veedu, Chitharal Pο, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil – 629 151. [Pan:Afqpr-2835-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri. M. Murali, C.I.T. & Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T. Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate 20.06.2025 30.07.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2020-21, Vide Order Dated 19.09.2024 Respectively. Since Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, Appeals Filed By The Revenue Were Heard & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

Section 68

chitta and adangal were produced without appreciating the fact that the assessee did not produce any evidence to prove the fact of earning of agricultural income. 2.1 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the each assessment is a standalone proceeding and the issues thereon have ... evidenced and supported by the necessary documentary proof for their acceptance & the extrapolation of agricultural incomes of other AYs without any factual finding is not acceptable. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,07,82,120/- made by AO on account of unexplained credits u/s.68

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. S.Rajendran, Chitharal Po

ITA 2903/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2903 & 2904/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Madurai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : : S.Rajendran, Vs.13-85/42A, Parthittavillai Veedu, Chitharal Pο, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil – 629 151. [Pan:Afqpr-2835-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri. M. Murali, C.I.T. & Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T. Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate 20.06.2025 30.07.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2020-21, Vide Order Dated 19.09.2024 Respectively. Since Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, Appeals Filed By The Revenue Were Heard & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

Section 68

Narayana Rao Sujatha, Chamarajanagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chamarajanagar

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

ITA 803/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri R Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234Section 250Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned assessing officer has failed to appreciate that the cash deposits I made pertains to agricultural income and no additions was warranted on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the power

Ali Mohammad, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5608/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5608/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Ali Mohammad Acit, Mohalla Kot Kachchi Saray, Vs. Circle-2(1)(1), Murad Nagar, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Etopm2968E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 3

merely a ministerial act, or an empty formality which can be dispensed with." (Emphasis supplied by us) 24. In the case of Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax vs. Keshab Chandra Mandal, 1950 SCR 435 : AIR 1950 SC 265 : (1950) 18 ITR 569 (para-17, 19 and 26), Hon'ble Supreme ... inferred from the different provisions of the statute and the rules framed there under. As already stated, there are many indications in the Bengal Agricultural Income- tax Act, 1944, and the rules made there under evidencing an intention to exclude the common law rule in the matter of the signature