← 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

Shri Bhanu Prabhakar Sriramaneni, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 418/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.418/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Bhanu Prabhakar Sriramaneni V. Acit – Circle – 2(1) 29-14-53A Cr Building, 1St Floor Prakasam Road M.G. Road, Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh Suryaraopet, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Abppb1613C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतत तितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

assessment order. He submitted that unsecured loans of Rs.4,00,000/- each from K. Prabhavathi and K. Narasimha Rao arise out of the agricultural income of the respective parties. He further submitted that the parties have sold agricultural produce to Sri Padmalaya Rice Mill as evidenced by the Invoice copy ... I.T.A.No.418/VIZ/2024 Bhanu Prabhakar Sriramaneni 7. Further, with respect to Lingamaneni Satyaji and Lingamaneni Shivaji, unsecured loans given out of the salary income and agricultural income as evidenced by the salary statements and VRO certificates provided in the paper book. He further submitted that the loans have been repaid during

Shakti Singh, Uttar Pradesh vs. Ward 3(3)(5), Saharanpur

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

ITA 4589/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Shakti Singh, Vs. Nfac, Bargaon B. O. Kamalpur, Delhi Saharanpur, 247452, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ceyps1579C Assessee By : Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Revenue By: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15/05/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148

appeal before the Learned NFAC, stating that the cash deposit represents rotation of funds out of cash withdrawals and partly out of net agricultural income earned amounting to Rs 20,12,800/-. The assessee also furnished a petition under in terms of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules certain ... remand report was called from the Learned AO. The Learned AO accepted the assessee's explanation and allowed the benefit of set off against agricultural income amounting to Rs 20,12,800/- as explained, in respect of cash deposits. The assessee also furnished a cash flow statement which reflected

Elavanchalil Abdul Basheer, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode

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

ITA 310/COCH/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Elavanchalil Abdul Basheer .......... Appellant Oittannmakm, Koduvally, Kozhikode 673572 [Pan: Bbwpb4939D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2024 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 23.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Agriculture’. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 21.12.2020 Declaring Income Of Rs. 4,60,00,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhokode

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

assessment year under consideration the appellant received a total consideration of Rs. 5,09,24,950/- on sale of following agricultural land: - Sl. No. Agricultural Income Date of sale Amount 1 Property: 1 04.12.2019 28,11,250 Re Survey Number 159/4 Thrikkaipetta village, Meppadi, Wayanad 2 Property ... jumped into the conclusion that the lands were agricultural lands. As regards the evidence of agricultural activities, the fact that the appellant had shown agricultural income itself will demonstrate that the appellant had carried on agricultural activities. 12. The reasoning of the AO that the lands were sold for higher

Sh. Laiq Ram S/O Sh. Tulsi Ram, Shimla vs. ITO, Ward, Shimla

In the result, the present appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 230/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2013-14
Section 69

similar claim was made. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer required the assessee to substantiate the claim of agricultural income. 4.1 Upon verification, it was found by the AO that the assessee neither owned nor cultivated any agricultural land. Consequently, the Assessing Officer treated the claim ... order the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted an affidavit asserting that the claim of agricultural income was made due to an inadvertent error. A supporting affidavit from the Chartered Accountant was also filed. However, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that

Sh. Laiq Ram S/O Sh. Tulsi Ram, Shimla vs. ITO, Ward, Shimla

In the result, the present appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 229/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Vinay Sharma, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 69

similar claim was made. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer required the assessee to substantiate the claim of agricultural income. 4.1 Upon verification, it was foundj by the AO that the assessee neither owned nor cultivated any agricultural land. Consequently, the Assessing Officer treated the claim ... order the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted an affidavit asserting that the claim of agricultural income was made due to an inadvertent error. A supporting affidavit from the Chartered Accountant was also filed. However, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that

Shri Balbir Singh Verma, Shimla vs. Pr.CIT, Shimla

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 314/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

filed his income tax return for the Assessment Year 2015-16 on 10.11.2015, declaring a total income of Rs. 2,35,94,250/- and agricultural income of Rs. 20,27,700/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for Manual (compulsory) Scrutiny on the basis of parameter at Para ... concealment. 4. After reviewing the necessary details, the Assessing Officer assessed the assessee’s total income at Rs. 2,98,98,600/-, Agricultural income remained Rs. 20,27,700/-. During hearing before us, it was stated by Ld. AR that the appellant had filed appeal before the CIT(A) against

Super Crop Safe Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1552/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80J

declaring income of Rs.1,98,72,520/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine large agricultural income. The assessee is engaged in the manufacturing of bio-fertilizers and pesticides. It is also cultivating ‘Mycorrhizal Fungal Infected Root’ which is used for manufacturing bio-fertilizers. The assessee sells this ... Assessing Officer allocated total expense of Rs.1,17,09,303/-, out of above four heads, towards agricultural expense and the agricultural income was accordingly reworked and excess agricultural income of Rs.66,55,696/- was added to the total income. Further, the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.12,30,554/- under

Padmavathi Guruvu, Srikakulam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Srikakulam

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

ITA 227/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.227/Viz/2024 (धनिाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Padmavathi Guruvu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Srikakulam. Ward-2, Pan: Abopg1523D Srikakulam. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca प्रत्यार्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 129Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

Annapurna Agro Industries as proprietary concern. The assessee furnished her return of income admitting a total income of Rs. 3,74,590/- and agricultural income of Rs. 2,62,842/- for the AY 2017-18 on 29/12/2017. The said return was summarily processed

Anilkumar Bhikhabhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 558/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Samir Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr DR
Section 10(1)

such deposits and undisclosed income. The appellant has been involved in agriculture activities, and the source of funds in the bank account represents legitimate agricultural income, which is exempt under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.2. The appellant respectfully submits that the cash deposits were made ... appellant. 2.4. The appellant requests that the addition confirmed due to cash deposits in the bank account be deleted as it represents genuine agricultural income, and the appellant be granted a proper opportunity to provide further details or documents to support the same. Ground No. 3: Failure to consider

Anilkumar Bhikhabhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 557/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Samir Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr DR
Section 10(1)

such deposits and undisclosed income. The appellant has been involved in agriculture activities, and the source of funds in the bank account represents legitimate agricultural income, which is exempt under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.2. The appellant respectfully submits that the cash deposits were made ... appellant. 2.4. The appellant requests that the addition confirmed due to cash deposits in the bank account be deleted as it represents genuine agricultural income, and the appellant be granted a proper opportunity to provide further details or documents to support the same. Ground No. 3: Failure to consider

Reena Verma, Haridwar vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(5), Roorkee

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as above

ITA 2215/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40ASection 68

noticed that the assessee had introduced the capital of Rs.1,20,000/- in her business claimed to have been sourced from her agricultural income. However, the assessee had not disclosed any agricultural income in her ITR. Hence, the AO treated the same as unexplained and taxed it. Further ... assessee has merely stated before the undersigned that Rs.1,20,000/- is a small amount which is generally available with all the persons having agricultural income. This cannot be the argument taken during the scrutiny proceeding 6 Reena Verma where tangible details and evidences are required to be furnished. Therefore

Reena Verma, Haridwar vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(5), Roorkee

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stand dismissed

ITA 2214/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.2214/Del/2018, A.Y. 2009-10 Reena Verma Income Tax Officer, C/O Shri Pawana Singh Ward 1(3)(5), Roorkee Khedi Kala, Mubaraqpur Vs. Laksar, Haridwar, Uttaranchal Pan: Agvpv0526B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/05/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter, The ‘Ay’) 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun [Hereinafter, The ‘Cit(A)’].

Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69h

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and was taxable under the head “income from other sources" without appreciating that this sum represented agriculture income and could not be taxed under section 69h of the Act. 4.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate ... therefore, taxed it as unexplained. Further, the AO also taxed the sum of Rs.5,22,185/- claimed to have been sourced from her agricultural income. However, the assessee had not disclosed any agricultural income in her ITR. Hence, the AO treated the same as unexplained and taxed it. Aggrieved

Som Prakash, Saharanpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(5), Saharanpur

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

ITA 5335/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69A

response, assessee has submitted the details of cash deposited as under :- (i) Business receipts/sales Rs.4,14,000/- (ii) Old Balance Rs. 85,000/- (iii) Agricultural Income Rs.2,80,000/- (iv) Cash deposits out of withdrawals From the same bank account Rs.6,45,600/- ITA No.5335/DEL/2024 The AO observed that ... withdrawal and redeposit of such entries. After considering the other submissions of the assessee, the AO accepted the cash deposits out of business and agricultural income, however proceeded to make the addition of Rs.6,45,600/- which was deposited out of cash withdrawal. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred

Krishna Plantations Pvt. Ltd, Margao vs. Assessment Unit - Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 199/PAN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji08 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.199/Pan/2023 (A.Y. 2020-21) Krishna Plantations Pvt Ltd, Vs National Faceless 15/1452,Nanuhouse, Varde Assessment Centre, . Valaulikar Road, 2 Floor, F-Ramp, Margoa-403601, Jawaharlal Nehru Goa. Stadium, New Delhi-110003 Pan/Gir No. Aaack6885G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Smt.Bhavya Goyal.Ar Revenue By Shri.Ravindra Hattalli Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 08.05.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale ,Jm: The Assesse Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Nfac/Cit(A) Delhi Passed U/Sec143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Has Not Pressed The Ground Of Appealno.1 & Made Endorsement; Accordingly This Ground Of Appeal Is Treated As Withdrawn & Is Dismissed.

mining business and has filed the return of income for the A.Y.2020-21 disclosing a total income of Rs.40,45,110/- on 26.11.2020 and agriculture income of Rs.1,47,87,286/-. Further the assessee has filed the revised return of income disclosing a total income of Rs.40 ... agricultural income of Rs.63,45,354/- on 5.03.2021. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny and notice u/sec143(2) and U/sec142(1) of the Act are issued. The assesee in compliance to various notices has submitted the details of 3 ITA. No.199PAN/2023 Krishna platations Pvt Ltd. gross agricultural income

Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Rajkot vs. Symbosa Granito Private Limited, Wankaner

ITA 806/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.806/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Symbosa Granite Pvt. Limited, Tax, Circle - 1(1), Rajkot Room No. 502,Aaykar Bhavan, Survey No. 125P1/P2,126,131P1/P2/P3, Race Course Road, Village- Matel, Rajkot - 300001 Wankaner- 363621(Gujarat) (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Pungliya, Ld. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Bench: Captiond Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Dated 13.08.2024,Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 263 & 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Vide Order Dated 31.03.2022.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungliya, Ld. CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL

Kadavath Ahmed Reyas, Kasaragod vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Kasargod

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

ITA 265/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Padmanathan K.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 282(1)

M/s.Kadavath Traders. The return of income for the assessment year 2017-2018 was filed on 06.11.2017 disclosing income of Rs.2,97,660 and agricultural income of Rs.52,00,000. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & TPS, Kasargod (hereinafter ... No.265/Coch/2025. Sri.Kadavath Ahmed Reyas. of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) at a total income of Rs.43,47,660 and agricultural income of Rs.11,50,000. While doing so, the AO disbelieved the deriving of agricultural income from cultivation of ginger, since the appellant had failed to show

Bhanwar Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Jaipur

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1493/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

Section 250Section 251Section 68

brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 23.07.2016 declaring taxable income at Rs.2,83,430/- and agricultural income of Rs.19,76,214/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason “Substantial increase in capital (Part ... This Rs. 1,06,68,958/- became opening balance for the A.Y. 2015-16 plus income for the year 4,54,917/- along with agricultural income of Rs.19,14,332/- minus drawings for the year 2,44,674/-, meaning thereby the closing balance of capital balance is Rs.1

Bhimjibhai Govindbhai Italiya(HUF), Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(10), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 6/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

family members, as well as the balance sheet where cash balance is more than Rs. 12,25,000/- during the year with gross agricultural income of Rs.5,64,863/- and net agricultural income of Rs. 3,50,113/- and thereby total cash balance of Rs. 15.75 lakhs. The above explanation ... copy of the Income Tax Returns filed by the assessee from Asst. Years 2015-16 to 2019-20 as follows: Asst. Years Income Returned Agricultural Income Filed

Pankajsinh Sabubhai Vaghela, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 430/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Tulsina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 250

filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, having mainly agricultural income and the assessee did not file return of income during the impugned year consideration. The Assessing Officer observed that during the year under consideration

Niranjanbhai D. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 470/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Jimit Shah, AR
Section 10(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44ASection 69

471/Ahd/2024 4 70,35,635/-, the net surplus of Rs. 2,04,24,335/- was claimed by the assessee as exempt agricultural income under section 10(1). The AO, however, treated the entire surplus as business income. It was held that the the pattern of purchase and sale of land ... earned a surplus of Rs.2,04,24,335/- on sale of immovable properties jointly held with others and claimed the same as exempt agricultural income. The AO, however, treated the transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade and assessed the entire surplus as business income. Since the sale