“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

Mangilal Datla, Banswara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Banswara, Banswara

ITA 304/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL

Pelhoubeinuo Sopfii, Kohima vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Dimapur

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

ITA 11/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh GoenkaFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT

Section 10(26)Section 250Section 69A

Pelhoubbeinuo Sopfii -Vs- The ITO, Ward-2, Dimapur AY: 2021-22 2. The facts of the case are that, the assessee has declared gross agricultural income of Rs. 41,87,920 and claimed the same as exempt income under section 10(26) of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer observed ... Nagaland since, the assessee is a member of the Scheduled Tribe community of the State of Nagaland. The assessee already could prove her agricultural income of Rs. 31,78,620/- as exempt income before the lower authorities. However, she could not prove before the lower authorities the source

Dinesh Damodar Shukla, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

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

ITA 891/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)

erred in law and on facts in sustaining addition of Rs.1,06,586/- being Interest on PPF investment and Rs.30,000/- being agricultural income, as these incomes are exempt in the hands of taxpayer. 4. Appellant contends that the learned CIT(A) ought to have granted appellant a better opportunity

Ct. Ramanathan (HUF), Pudukkottai vs. PCIT 1, Madurai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 761/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.761/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 C.T.Ramanathan(Huf), Income Tax Officer, No.7/45, Ct.Rm.S.House, M.St.S. Street Ward-1, Kulipirai, Pudukottai Dist, Pudukottai. Tamil Nadu-622 402. [Pan: Aaahc0701L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.V.Subbarayan, Dcit(Retd.) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.M.K.Biju, Cir Dr By Virtual. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.V.Subbarayan, DCIT(Retd.)For Respondent: Mr.M.K.Biju, CIR DR by virtual

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3

value of closing stock; (iv) to verify the claim of deduction for theft etc. whereas in the appellant’s case, all queries relating to agricultural income were raised by the Assessment Unit and answered by the appellant. II. The order of the Ld.Principal Commissioner of Income tax, Madurai ... Ld.Pr CIT failed to note that the assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi issued a long questionnaire with as many as 15 queries all relating to ‘agricultural income’, considered the appellant’s reply to all the points and thereafter passed the scrutiny assessment Page - 2 - of 26 ITA No.761 /Chny/2025 order under

Mani Shanthi, Namakkal vs. ITO, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 1224/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1224/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mani Shanthi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 40, Perumal Koil Street, Circle 1, Sendamangalam, Namakkal 637 407. Erode. [Pan:Ajnps2143N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Senthil Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.10.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 393 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Appellant: Shri Senthil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

total income at ₹.35,99,480/- for AY 2020-21. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify the issue of agricultural income and issued notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 29.06.2021. Thereafter, notices under section ... same as exempt. Since the assessee did 3 I.T.A. No.1224/Chny/25 not file any details in support of the claim, the Assessing Officer disallowed the agricultural income of ₹.29,56,220/- and added to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made

Ajay Kumar, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 802/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 145Section 145(3)

facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income for AY 2013-14 on 17.09.2013 declaring income of Rs.8,39,220/- and agricultural income of Rs.60,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly, notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income ... assessing officer has erred in computing the total income at Rs.16,58,620.00 by estimating the Net Profit @1% of the total turnover alongwith Agriculture Income at Rs.60,000.00 as against declared income of Rs.8,39,220.00 alongwith Agriculture Income at Rs.60,000.00. The CIT(A) erred in also sustaining

Ajay Kumar, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 801/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 145Section 145(3)

DCIT, Circle- 1, Muzaffarnagar vs. Ajay Kumar, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 665/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 145Section 145(3)

Sh Ranjeet Kumar Sharma, Gwalior vs. ITO 2(1), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with the observations made herein above

ITA 62/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalito, 2(1), Shri Ranjeet Kumar Gawalior. Sharma, Vs. Meera Colony, Bihind-477447 Madhya Pradesh. Pan-Bwdps0542K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv. & Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv. Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

Section 143(3)Section 69A

account of cash deposited during demonetization period. The Ld. AO also made addition of Rs.6,00,000/- by disallowing the agricultural income declared by the assesse. Against this order, the assesse preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee, thus, the assessee ... case the learned CIT (A) was not justified in not considering to relevant facts of the case relating to non acceptance of agriculture income of Rs 6 lac by the AO. Which was also deposited in the State Bank of India. Suitable directions & interference may kindly be made.” 7. During

Abc Paper Products, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(1) Agra, Agra

ITA 146/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)

partnership firm. The return of income for the year under appeal was filed declaring total income at ‘Nil' and assessee has declared net agricultural income of Rs.49,50,000/- which was claimed as exempt u/s 10(37) of the Act, being compensation received from NHAI on compulsory acquisition ... land. The case of the assessee was selected for ʻlimited scrutiny' for reason “Large agricultural income in comparison to total income”. The AO treating the compensation as capital receipt and completed the assessment u/s 143(3), vide order dated 10.03.2021 wherein the addition of Rs.49,50,000/- was made

Brajendra Vikram Singh, Jalaun vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(5), Orai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 120/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Brajendra Vikram Singh Ward-2(1)(5), 58, Ram Nagar Ajnari Vs. Orai-285001. Road, Orai, Jalaun-285001. Pan-Ciops6701G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 6

receipts of my business as undisclosed income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 08. The AO has erred by adding the Agriculture Income on the basis of original non-est return, which was nonexistent and also upheld by the CIT(A)/NFAC. 09. The Assessment order passed ... appeal is dismissed Ground No.8 In this ground the appellant has contended that The Assessing Officer grossly erred by adding the Agriculture Income on the basis of original non- est return, which was nonexistent. This ground is related to the ground no.1, the adjudication is already done in the ground

Income Tax Officer-1, Morena vs. Shri Agrasen Logistics, Jotai Road, Porsa

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

total income, the appellant claimed that all the creditors were either having sufficient funds for the purpose of lending or else they were having agricultural income which was not included in the total income declared in the ITR as the exempted from taxation as per the provisions

Smt..Anuradha, Pathankot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1), Pathankot

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 437/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250

certified by the Gram Panchayat vide his certificate dated 01/10/2023, as evidence thereof). As per written submissions filed she has no income other than agricultural income and interest on bank fixed deposits, renewed from year to year, and she is a non-filer. 5. On the basis of information ... certified by the local panchayat authority, and it is also factually not disputed that the assessee has no other source of income except agricultural income (and I.T.A. No. 437/Asr/2024 9 Assessment Year: 2012-13 bank interest from old fixed deposits renewed down the years). Taking a very practical approach

Sajanben Jagaji Dabhi, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1894/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Shah, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR

Section 144Section 148Section 250

BHDPD1102K, vide acknowledgement No. 342168120210212, declaring income of Rs.80,003/-. The computation of income reveals net taxable income of Rs.80,003/- and an agricultural income of Rs.46,520/-, totaling to Rs.1,26,523/-. III. Date : 31.03.2018 – Notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued. IV. Date : 16.11.2018 - The Assessing ... already filed the return on 21.02.2012 vide receipt No. 342168120210212 at net taxable income of Rs.80,003/-, including agricultural income of Rs.46,520/-.” 3. From the above, it is apparent that though the assessee has filed return of income on 21.02.2012, the Assessing Officer in the reasons for reopening

Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Burdwan

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

ITA 776/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 776/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh,………….………..………Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan:Adepg2967P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………..….…....Respondent Ward-1(4), Burdwan, Aayakar Bhawan, Court Compound, Burdwan-713101, West Bengal Appearances By: Parna Dutta, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 24, 2025 O R D E R

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

comply. The ld. Assessing Officer treated it as bogus liability and added to the total income of the assessee. The assessee has shown agricultural income relevant to A.Y. 2017-18 amounting to Rs.5,62,740/-. As the assessee did not furnish anything, the ld. Assessing Officer treated the amount

Income Tax Offcier, Kalyan vs. Vinod Kishan Nenwani, Ulhasnagar

ITA 3289/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailito – 2(2), 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan West, Thane ............... Appellant Maharashtra - 421301 V/S Vinod Kishan Nenwani, 102, Anand Villa, Near Shalimar Society, ……………… Respondent Ulhasnagar, Thane – 421003 Pan : Aakpn0051C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by adjudicating the contention of the appellant on the issue of agricultural income which was never a part of the assessment order as the assessee had raised the issues for the first time during the appellate proceedings, thereby bringing

Rameshwar Ramgopal Goud, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Nashik

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

ITA 90/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Despande (Virtual)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 68

under the Income Tax Act. Ld. AR also submitted before the bench that the agricultural land was cultivated by the assessee since long and agricultural income was regularly shown in the income tax return of the assessee, the 7/12 extracts also supports the statement of the assessee that the concerned ... agricultural land, duly supported by Revenue records wherein the same land was recognised as being cultivated agricultural land, secondly the assessee is continuously showing agricultural income in his returns prior to sale of the same land and the assessee also relied on various judgements of the decisions

Dharampal Malik, Bemetara vs. Income Tax Officer-1(3), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 267/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.266 & 267/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2017-18 Dharampal Malik Rakhi Joba, Tehsil Saja, Post- Deokar, Bemetara (C.G.)-491 331 Pan: Befpm9373E

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

genuineness of the transaction, but the assessee failed to substantiate that the case the deposit in the bank account was out of the agricultural Income. And in the absence of any documentary evidence, the AO made addition of the cash deposit. 6.2 During the course of appellate proceeding as well ... same facts of the case, whereas in this case the appellant has failed completely to substantiate that the cash deposit is out of the agricultural Income. So far the appellant has only submitted the ITR copy, Rinpustika & the bank account statement. There is no evidence stating that the cash deposited

Dharampal Malik, Bemetara vs. Income Tax Officer-1(3), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 266/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

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

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

ITA 1851/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Parekh, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R

Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69A

Income-tax Act, 1961, whereas the additions involved in AY 2015-16 were under section 68 of Rs. 10,85,690 on account of agricultural income and section 56(2)(vii) of Rs. 13,33,16,700 which are entirely different in nature and scope. I.T.A. No. 1851/Mum/2025 ... representing unexplained cash deposits in bank is erroneous as the said cash deposits are partly out of earlier withdrawals and partly out of agricultural income of the appellant and therefore are out of sources that were duly explained to the AO during the assessment proceedings. In view of the same