← 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

Sh. Chattar Singh Tomar, Paonta Sahib vs. ITO, Nahan

ITA 53/CHANDI/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 May 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 51/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 52/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 53/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Shri Chattar Singh Tomar Ito बनाम/ Vs. (Rep. By Lh Shri Raghubir Singh) Nahan Vpo Kamrao, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, Hp "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abapt-2391-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ajay Dhiman (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Sharma (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals Are Recalled Matters. From The Case Records, It Emerges That The Assessee’S Appeals For Assessment Years (Ay) 1999-2000 To 2004-05 Were Disposed-Off By Tribunal Vide Ita Nos.48 To 53/Chandi/2008 Common Order Dated 07-07-2008. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Dhiman (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 153A

mistake has occurred in the order of the Tribunal on this issue. 10. The next plea of the applicant is regarding estimation of the agricultural income. It has been pleaded by the applicant in the application that ground No.5 taken by the assessee regarding earning of agricultural income was duly ... ground of appeal for assessment year 2002-03 and have found that the assessee had taken a specific ground No.5 agitating the estimation of agricultural income at Rs.38,750/- as against Rs.1,55,000/- declared by the assessee. However, the said ground had remained un-adjudicated. Hence, the mistake

Sh. Chattar Singh Tomar, Paonta Sahib vs. ITO, Nahan

ITA 52/CHANDI/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 51/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 52/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 53/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Shri Chattar Singh Tomar Ito बनाम/ Vs. (Rep. By Lh Shri Raghubir Singh) Nahan Vpo Kamrao, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, Hp "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abapt-2391-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ajay Dhiman (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Sharma (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals Are Recalled Matters. From The Case Records, It Emerges That The Assessee’S Appeals For Assessment Years (Ay) 1999-2000 To 2004-05 Were Disposed-Off By Tribunal Vide Ita Nos.48 To 53/Chandi/2008 Common Order Dated 07-07-2008. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Dhiman (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 153A

mistake has occurred in the order of the Tribunal on this issue. 10. The next plea of the applicant is regarding estimation of the agricultural income. It has been pleaded by the applicant in the application that ground No.5 taken by the assessee regarding earning of agricultural income was duly ... ground of appeal for assessment year 2002-03 and have found that the assessee had taken a specific ground No.5 agitating the estimation of agricultural income at Rs.38,750/- as against Rs.1,55,000/- declared by the assessee. However, the said ground had remained un-adjudicated. Hence, the mistake

Sh. Chattar Singh Tomar, Paonta Sahib vs. ITO, Nahan

ITA 51/CHANDI/2008[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 May 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 51/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 52/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 53/Chandi/2008 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Shri Chattar Singh Tomar Ito बनाम/ Vs. (Rep. By Lh Shri Raghubir Singh) Nahan Vpo Kamrao, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, Hp "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abapt-2391-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ajay Dhiman (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Sharma (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals Are Recalled Matters. From The Case Records, It Emerges That The Assessee’S Appeals For Assessment Years (Ay) 1999-2000 To 2004-05 Were Disposed-Off By Tribunal Vide Ita Nos.48 To 53/Chandi/2008 Common Order Dated 07-07-2008. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Dhiman (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 153A

mistake has occurred in the order of the Tribunal on this issue. 10. The next plea of the applicant is regarding estimation of the agricultural income. It has been pleaded by the applicant in the application that ground No.5 taken by the assessee regarding earning of agricultural income was duly ... ground of appeal for assessment year 2002-03 and have found that the assessee had taken a specific ground No.5 agitating the estimation of agricultural income at Rs.38,750/- as against Rs.1,55,000/- declared by the assessee. However, the said ground had remained un-adjudicated. Hence, the mistake

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. M/S Industrial Mineral Co., 100% Eou, Tuticorin

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 529/CHNY/2023[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.390/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou Acit बनाम/ 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Central Circle-(1), Vs. Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin-628 006. Madurai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.529/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou बनाम/ Central Circle-(1), 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Vs. Madurai Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin 628006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69B

ought to have seen that the assessee had reconciled the difference arising out of closing entries towards valuation of closing stock, forex loss and agricultural income in the proceedings before the A.O. and there was no case for addition to the net profit returned by the assessee

Industrial Mineral Co, 100%Eou, Tuticorin vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 390/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.390/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou Acit बनाम/ 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Central Circle-(1), Vs. Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin-628 006. Madurai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.529/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou बनाम/ Central Circle-(1), 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Vs. Madurai Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin 628006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69B

ought to have seen that the assessee had reconciled the difference arising out of closing entries towards valuation of closing stock, forex loss and agricultural income in the proceedings before the A.O. and there was no case for addition to the net profit returned by the assessee

Tek Singh, Guhla vs. Income Tax Officer, Kaithal

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 1231/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1231/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Tek Singh Ito S/O Shri Desa Singh Ward No-2 बनाम/ Vs. Village Majheri, Kaithal Guhla Haryana 136034 Haryana-136027 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Bwdps-9451-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri O. P. Arora (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai, [Cit(A)] Dated 28-10-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 27-11-2018. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition Of Cash Deposit For Rs.6 Lacs. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri O. P. Arora (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

made by the assessee in his savings bank account. The assessee furnished bank statement and copy of account from commission agent regarding agricultural income. The Ld. AO partly accepted the claim of the assessee but added the amount of Rs.6 Lacs in the hands of the assessee