← All Phrases

“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
98
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
98
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

Pratap Uttam Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 41(1)(1), Mumbai Formally Known As ACIT 32(3), Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2043/MUM/2025[A Y 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025

Bench: Hon‟Ble Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Hon‟Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainpratap Uttam Purohit Vs. Dcit, Circle 42(1)(1) 307, Jalaram Business Formerly Known As Centre, Ganjawala Lane Acit 32(3) Borivali (W), S.O Kautilya Bhawan Mumbai – 400092. Avenue 3, Near Videsh Bhavan,G Block Bkc Bandra East Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. Ahcpp6451F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bharat Kumar, Ca Revenue By Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 29.01.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 Pratap Uttam Purohit., Mumbai

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 44

individual is engaged in the business of civil work in the name of “Dev Engineering” and has also possessing agricultural land and having agricultural income from its activities. In this case disallowance was made by AO by invoking section 40A(3) r.w.r 6DD of the Act, as the payments were

DCIT 42 1 1, Mumbai vs. Pratap Uttam Purohit, Mumbai

ITA 2042/MUM/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025
For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani
Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 41(1)(a)Section 68Section 69C

case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is erred in deleting the addition of Rs.22,85,200/-made on account of inflated agriculture income claimed without appreciating the fact that the assessee has shown unrealistic exorbitant gross receipt from agriculture by obtaining of cash sale bills from the Mandi ... Ground No. 1 5. This ground relates to challenging the order of CIT(A) in deleting the additions made on account of inflated agricultural income claimed by the assessee. 6. We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material on record, judgments cited before

Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Thane

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4753/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon‟Ble Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosainsmt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani Vs. Ito, Ward 3(2) 1 A/34, Drugs Society, Opp. Room No. 4, 6Th Floor, Jk Gram, Samatha Nagar B-Wagle Estate, Midc, Pokhran Road No. 1 Thane (W) Thane (W). Pan/Gir No. Aaupj0472D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By Shri Chetan M. Kacha, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 22.08.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. All The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Interrelated & Interconnected & Relates To Challenging The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) In Upholding The Order Of Ao In Reopening The 2 Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai

Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

that the original return in this case was filed by the assessee on November 1, 2004 declaring income of Rs. 1,44,800 and agricultural income of Rs. 1,95,000. Subsequently, the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response to that

Smt. Meena Singh Pal, Nanital vs. ITO, W-2(3)(1), Nanital

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 48/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Meena Singh Pal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Katyuri House, Upper Mall Ward-2(3)(1), Road, Tallital, Nainital, Nainital Uttarakhand Pan :Bigpp3499D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 143(3)

learned lower appellate authority’s order at page 9 is that she is a member of an HUF Mahendra Singh Pal deriving regular agricultural income from sale of agricultural produce and this latter HUF has deposited the impugned cash which has not been pleaded and proved alongwith the corresponding supportive

Sawinder Jeet Singh Kaler, Nanital vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(1), Nanital

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 47/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Sawinder Jeet Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kaler, Ward-2(3)(1), Gol Ghar, Mallital, Nainital, Nainital Uttarakhand Pan :Alypk9431G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 69A

proceeded ex-parte. 3. The assessee’s twin substantive grounds herein seek to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action, inter alia, disallowing his agricultural income of Rs.9,85,000/- and cash deposits of Rs.15,15,490/-; respectively, upheld in the lower appellate discussion, reading as under: “8.1 Ground ... directed against the AO making addition of Rs.9,85,000 on account of disallowance of Agricultural income. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings found that the appellant has declared agricultural income of Rs 9,85,000. The AO held that the appellant in spite of several opportunities failed

Balwant Singh Chauhan, Noida vs. ITO Ward 4(2), Patna

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 49/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Sanjay Awasthi(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 147Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) on legal as well as on the sustenance of addition made by the AO treating the agricultural income of the assesse as income from other sources based on the alleged undisclosed sources. In ITA No.49/Pat/2025, the assesse has challenged the order passed ... facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.6,23,000/- made by the Id. AO on account by treating the agriculture income as income from other sources as alleged undisclosed sources, also erred in not invoking any provisions of law while making the addition

Balwant Singh Chouhan, Noida vs. ITO Ward 4(2), Patna

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 48/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Sanjay Awasthi(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 147Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) on legal as well as on the sustenance of addition made by the AO treating the agricultural income of the assesse as income from other sources based on the alleged undisclosed sources. In ITA No.49/Pat/2025, the assesse has challenged the order passed ... facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.6,23,000/- made by the Id. AO on account by treating the agriculture income as income from other sources as alleged undisclosed sources, also erred in not invoking any provisions of law while making the addition

Muthoot Bankers, Perumbavoor vs. ITO, Ward-2, Aluva

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

ITA 49/COCH/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member), Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 244ASection 40B

Rs.5026.56 for delayed settlement of sale consideration. The ld. AR reiterated that the firm is following cash system of accounting and non-receipt of agricultural income does not preclude the liability of the business expenditure if it had actually been paid in accordance with the deed. He also stated that

Paloor Soman Rajeev, Cheruthony vs. Income Tax Officer, Thodupuzha

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 323/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Years: 2020-21 Paloor Soman Rajeev Ito, Thodupuzha V. Kkp Building, Idukki Colony P O, Cheruthony, Idukki 685602, Kerala. Pan : Akzpr9669R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sreeraj, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr Ar. Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.03.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2020–21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2020-21 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,42,320/- & Claiming Agricultural Income As Exempt Income At Rs.45 Lakhs. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under E- Assessment Scheme In Order To Scrutinize Substantial Increase In Agricultural Income As Compared To That Shown In Preceding Return & To Verify The Genuineness Of The Agricultural Income & The Agricultural Activity Of The Assessee. The Assessing Officer Issued Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Served

For Appellant: Shri Sreeraj, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 143(2)Section 144

case are that the assessee has filed return of income for assessment year 2020-21 declaring total income of Rs.5,42,320/- and claiming agricultural income as exempt income at Rs.45 lakhs. The case of the assessee was selected under e- assessment scheme in order to scrutinize substantial increase ... agricultural income as compared to that shown in preceding return and to verify the genuineness of the agricultural income and the agricultural activity of the assessee. The Assessing Officer issued statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were served 2 Paloor Soman Rajeev through both electronically

ACIT, Circle-30(1), New Delhi vs. Kundan Veer Singh Bhullar, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 71/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 68

That, in facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made on account of Agricultural Income. 2. That, in facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs. 8,38,412/- ignoring the fact ... appeal.” 3. Heard and perused the records. Ground No.1; In regard to this ground it can be observed that the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs.7,25,300/- which has been claimed as exempt from tax. The AO has asked the assessee to furnish complete details of agricultural income

Joyce Joy, Ernakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Aluva

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

ITA 816/COCH/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR

dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee had not produced any details regarding the sale of agricultural produce and no agricultural income was reported during the earlier years. 6. As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. The appeal was filed with ... said land, the existence of the plywood factory would not alter the character of the land in question. Further the non reporting of the agricultural income is not a fatal when there are other evidences available to prove that there are agricultural activities going on. 16. We have also gone

Rahul Nemgonda Patil, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ichalkaranji

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

ITA 2522/PUN/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2025
For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

response thereto, the assessee submitted that the sources of cash deposit is out of gift received from blood relation and receipts of agricultural income. However, these submissions were not supported by filing any documentary evidence in respect thereof. The show cause letter issued by the Ld.AO also remained un-complied ... this case are that the appellant has not explained the source of cash deposits in his bank account. The explanation of gifts and agricultural income is not supported by the documentary evidences Merely because the cash credits have been taxed

Parisons Estates and Industries Private Limited, Calicut vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Kozhikode

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

ITA 171/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Rule 8 as well as considering income from sale of tea manufactured from bought tea leaves and income from sale of tea dust as agricultural income has been consistently followed by the assessee for a number of years. For the past several years Page 2 of 10 , assessments have been ... hand. “D. Special Cases Income which is partially agricultural and partially from business . 7. (1)In the case of income which is partially agricultural income as defined in section 2 and partially income chargeable to income-tax under the head "Profits and gains of business", in determining that part which

Rana Iqbal Singh, V. Dosanjh Kalan, Phillaur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Phagwara

In the result, appeal of the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 496/ASR/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 496/Asr/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rana Iqbal Singh, बनाम The Ito, Ward-1, Village Dosanjh Kalan, Assessment Unit, Tehsil Phillaur Delhi Distt. Jalandhar 144502 स्थधयी लेखध सं./Pan No: Ctops8735D अपीलधथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal &For Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 60Section 68

year at an income of Rs.4,90,460/- on account of interest income and also declared an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- as agricultural income. The notice u/s 148 was issued by the Assessing Officer on 27.07.2022 and the case was selected for reassessment on the basis of ‘Iqrarnama

Dilip Sampatrao Yewale, Achalpur vs. I.T.O., Ward, - 5, Amravati, Ayakar Bhavan

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 162/NAG/2025[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 139Section 68

keeping in view the facts of case lower authorities erred in making addition of Rs. 7,38,500/- u/s 68 without giving credit of agricultural income and cash withdrawals from bank. The addition made by AO & confirmed by CIT (Appeals) without service of notice is not justified, improper and deserves ... Brief facts are, the assessee is a senior citizen, is an an agriculturist and cultivates the agricultural land on his own and earns agricultural income. Apart from agricultural income, neither the ass is engaged in any sort of business nor derive any income from any other activities. The assessee even

Venkata Lakshmi Padmavathi Uppalapu, Vijayawada vs. ITO, Ward - 2(3), Vijayawada

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

ITA 299/VIZ/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

well known that agricultural sales, especially in rural areas, are often conducted in cash, and this money is later deposited into bank accounts. Agricultural income is exempt from tax under the Income Tax Act. Supporting Judgments: CIT v. P.V.R.S.Raja (SC):Held that income from agricultural produce is not taxable unless ... applicable only when the source of money is unsubstantiated or false. In this case: The appellant has clearly explained the source as agricultural income. There is no contrary evidence from the department to show the income is fictitious. Hence, invoking Section 69A is unjustified Supporting Judgment: N.K.Maheshwariv. ITO (Rajasthan

Surinder Singh Bassi, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 966/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 966/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Surinder Singh Bassi, The Ito, बनाम Village Mamupur, Ward 6(4), Tehsil Kharar, Chandigarh Vs. Mohali 140301 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aerpb1274J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Piyush Pruthi, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr (Virtual)

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Pruthi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

under income from House Property, Income from Business, Income from Other Sources and Claimed an exemption of Rs. 4,50,000/- towards agricultural income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment through CASS on the following grounds: 1. Cash deposit during the year. 2. Cash deposit during the demonetization ... before the date of gift (ie. 15.10.2016). 5.9 Also, the claim that balance amount Rs. 4,00,000/- was out of savings from agricultural income is also not supported by details of crops raised, sold to whom, amount of receipt etc. mere copy of land holdings held does not come

Shelja Goyal, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana, Kitchlu Nagar

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 676/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 57

income from other sources amounting to Rs. 32,08,721/- including bank interest, FDR interest, and interest from unsecured loans, and agricultural income of Rs. 74,000. Against the interest income, she claimed a deduction of Rs. 27,40,954 under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, comprising

Sachidanandaiah Ganesh, Tamil Nadu vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 1, Hosur

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

ITA 190/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:190/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sachidanandaiah Ganesh, Income Tax Officer, 37, Vaniyar Street, Vs. Ward 1, Kelamangalam, Hosur. Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu- 635 113. [Pan: Ajipg-9330-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha Addl.C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 69A

previous year ending March 31 2017 on August 09, 2018 electronically, declaring a Taxable Total Income of Rs.3,32,480/-.The assessee had shown agricultural income, income from house property, commission income and income from business of selling vegetables. The return of income was processed under section ... been able to explain the transaction with specific evidence and logic. It merely states that the deposit is from the previous year saving and agricultural income. The logic of the appellant is not very sound and the appellant has failed to explain the transaction to the satisfaction of the Assessing

Bhupendra Sharma HUF, Noida vs. ITO Ward 5(1)(2(3), Noida

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

ITA 127/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roybhupendra Sharma Huf Vs. Cit(A) Nfac E-9, Sector-41, Noida Delhi – 110001 Uttar Pradesh- 201301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaghb3664P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA, &For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr
Section 143(3)Section 263

been claimed that the issue stands adjudicated on merits in the assessee's own case for AY 2017-18 accepting the genuineness of the agricultural income. On the basis of this claim, the assessee has requested that the addition made by the AO in the current relevant year ... answered by the ITAT, it is factually incorrect as well as completely misleading to claim herein now before this Bench that the genuineness of agricultural income has been accepted by the Bench. By making this claim, what the asessee is essentially proposing is that the ITAT has gone beyond