← 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

Chander Mohan, Shimla vs. Income Tax Officer, Shimla

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 102/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.102/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Chander Mohan Ito बनाम/ Dhingu Dhar Nath Bhawan Ward 01, Vs. Sanjauli, Himachal Pradesh 171006 Shimla.171003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Almpm-9895-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Isha Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016- 17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Central (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 19-12-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] On Best Judgment Basis U/S. 144 Of The Act On 29-11-2018. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Assessment Of Agricultural Income Of Rs.28.32 Lacs As ‘Income From Other Sources’

For Appellant: Ms. Isha Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld
Section 144

Officer [AO] on best judgment basis u/s. 144 of the Act on 29-11-2018. The sole grievance of the assessee is assessment of agricultural income of Rs.28.32 Lacs as ‘income from other sources’ which has been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has failed to appear before

Javed Akbar Sayyad, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 14(5), Pune

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

ITA 758/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.758/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Javed Akbar Sayyad, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(5), Pune. Flat No.09, Silver Nest, Yadgar City, Market Yard, Pune- 413102. Pan : Aucps0699B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Mrs. Indira Adakil Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.01.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Mrs. Indira Adakil

that the assessee is an individual and filed his Return of Income on 06-02-2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,19,830/- and agricultural income of Rs.24,66,711/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, appellant has submitted the required ... information along with his explanation with all documentary evidences to justify agricultural income, however the Assessing Officer by pointing out certain defects in the bills issued by fruits vendors. Thereby treated entire gross receipts on account of agricultural income as bogus and accordingly made an addition of Rs.46

Inder Singh, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Rishi Nagar Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 65/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.65/Chd/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम Inder Singh S/O Bara Singh The Ito, Vpo Partap Singh Wala, Ward 3(1), Basant Nagar, Rishi Nagar, Hambran Road, Ludhiana. Ludhiana.141108. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No. Delps1255F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) िनधा""रतीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal,C.A. राज"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh.Vivek Vardhan,Addl. Cit.Sr. Dr. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-05-2025 उदघोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30-05-2025 आदेश/Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30-11-2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi[Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Of Rs. 21,00,000/- By Treating The Cash Deposits Made

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal,C.AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan,Addl. CIT.Sr. Dr

bank account on 04.06.2016. The Assessee had withdrawn Rs. 23,00,000/ from his bank account on 15.06.2016, The Assessee had further received agricultural income as mentioned in ‘J’ Form of Rs. 6,09,519/- on 25.10.2016 and Rs. 4,48,176/- on 03.11.2016.The Assessee had deposited Rs.5

Balasaheb Kushaba Nivangune, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6 (2), Pune

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

ITA 2791/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2791/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Balasaheb Kushaba Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Pune. Ninvangune, S. No.41, Plot No.41, Jadhav Nagar, Vadagaon Budruk, Pune- 411041. Pan : Afmpn4866Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prateek Jha Revenue By : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 28.10.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order For Assessment Year 2017-18 Framed On 19.12.2019 By The Ito, Ward-6(2), Pune. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.12,69,000/- On Account Of Money Deposited In Cash In Bank Account During

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

confirming the addition of Rs.5,12,181/- without appreciating that the assessee had acquired gold jewellery out of his savings from past earnings, agricultural income and current year's business income and the addition was not justified. 3. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another