← 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

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 450/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2011-12

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

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 449/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2011-12

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

Patel Kalubhai Arjanbhai (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2037/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2037/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ Patel Kalubhai Arjanbhai Income Tax Officer (Huf) Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. Bunglow 235, Lane 12, Satyagrah Chhavni, Satellite, Ahmedabad – 380015, Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaehp0886R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Rupesh R. Shah, Ar. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J L Bhatia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Rupesh R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri J L Bhatia, Sr. DR
Section 250

Appellant has produced various documents before AO and CIT(A) therefore there is no cause to disbelieve an agricultural Income may be accepted in toto on merits when appellant HUF has no other source of Income. 3. That your appellant reserve right to amend/ alter/ modify any ground or grounds ... 2037/Ahd/2024 [Patel Kalubhai Arjanbhai (HUF) vs. ITO] A.Y. 2017-18 - 3 – 4. He pointed out that in the case of the assessee the agricultural income disclosed by the assessee was not accepted completely and part of it, therefore, added to its income as ‘income from other sources’ and subjected

Income Tax Officer, Salisbury Park vs. Sangram Vishwasrao Kachare, Wadgaosheri

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 1986/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri N.K. Rander &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

lands have also been acquired by the NHAI (National Highway Authority of India) under compulsory acquisition of land and even after that the agricultural income of the assessee has jumped from Rs.23,38,285/- in AY 2018-19 or Rs.29,74,146/ in AY 2019-20 to Rs.71 ... agricultural income was increased about 205-65%. However, the rate of Pomegranate as provided by assessee has shown a growth @ 113.02% only. 2) The Learned CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in not appreciating the fact that the sale of dried grapes is not an agricultural product, rather the Raisins/Kismis

Suvarna Kiran Chavan, Nashik vs. ACIT Circle-1, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1984/PUN/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B Phadke, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

data in the ITR. Appellant contends that, an amount of Rs. 1,21,91,939 (ie. capital gain, Income from other sources and Agricultural income) was twice included in Sr. No. 5 of PART A - Schedule "OI" of the rectified ITR; despite income from capital gain & income from other sources ... data in ITR. He submitted that the amount of Rs. 1,21,91,739/- pertaining to capital gain; income from other sources and agricultural income was included twice in serial No. 5 of Part A- Schedule “OI” of the rectified ITR; despite income from capital gain and income from other

Sowjanya Basi Reddy, Proddatur, A.P vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Proddatur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA K A Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 269SSection 69A

individual and filed her return of income for the assessment year 2017-2018 on 13.12.2017 admitting total income of Rs.3,25,260/- and agricultural income of Rs.1,51,450/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS on verification of substantial cash deposits into bank account during the demonetisation period

Chinnamuniyappa Venkatesh, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 2917/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Mr. C. Sathish, CAFor Respondent: Mr. P.Vijaideepan, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 292BSection 69A

Ground 3: The learned CIT(A) and AO erred in sustaining the addition of ₹5,86,000, which represents exempt agricultural income, despite the appellant presenting adequate evidence. The appellant's sole source of income is agriculture, and no contrary evidence was brought on record by the AO. 4. Ground ... learned CIT(A) and AO erred in levying interest under Section 234B on cash deposits that are fully explained and exempt as agricultural income.” 3. Brief facts are as under: The assessee filed his return of income on 23-11-2017 admitting "Nil" income from business and agricultural income

Nik Family Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 23(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 403/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainnik Family Trust Vs. Dcit, Circle – 23(1) C-7, Ishwar Niwas Sick Piramal Chamber. Nagar, Vp Raod, Girgaon. Pan/Gir No. Aadtn2244C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandhi A/W Shri Ashutosh Patare Revenue By Shri Avinash Karpe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 24.12.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Only Effective Issue Raised In The Present Appeal Regarding Levying Of Surcharge. In This Regard It Is Submitted That Assessee Is A Discretionary Trust, Eligible To File Return In Itr-5, The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of 2 Nik Family Trust, Mumbai

Section 143(1)Section 164Section 2Section 2(1)Section 250

subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3). Sub section (2) of section 2 speaks of an assessee having net agricultural income exceeding five thousand rupees, in addition to total income, hence, is not relevant for our purpose. However, sub section (3) of section 2 of Finance

Maya Devi, Hazaribag vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/RAN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: BEFORESHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand Pandya, Sr.DR
Section 56(2)

father of the assesse, the certificate and confirmations and affidavits have also been produced that the same are out of the agricultural income. The sum received from Shri Kuldeep Kumar, who is brother of the assesse for an amount of Rs.4,95,000/-.It was the submission that the confirmation

Spin Packaging Ltd., Bilaspur vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Bilaspur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 165/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 165/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

erred in sustaining the order of the A.O. where in the A.O. has erred in making addition of Rs. 2,35,260/- of agricultural income considering it as bogus,. The addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by CIT(A) is unjustified, unwarranted and uncalled for and deserves

Raghuvirsinh Harishchandrasinh Zala, Halvad vs. ITO, WD-4, Morbi

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

ITA 298/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Viral Vajani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69

return of income for AY 2017-18 on 08.07.2017 declaring the income at Rs. 2,72,290/-. Besides the assessee has also shown agricultural income of Rs. 7,64,205/-. The return of income filed was processed u/s. 143(1) of the act without any modification. Thereafter, the case ... been selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for examination of reason: “Large agricultural income shown in ITR and large cash deposit during demontisation.” Subject to the above remarks and considering the submission of the assessee, the total income of the assessee is computed as under: Gross Total Income

Shri Martanda Devasthan Varsoli, Varsoli Alibag vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Panvel

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

ITA 2808/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2808/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessment proceedings. During the course of 2 Shri Martanda Devasthan Varsoli hearing, assessee submitted the sale deed along with 7/12 extract for the agricultural income earned during the year and also to prove that the land sold was used for the agricultural produce. However, since the assessee was unable ... Municipality and the location of the land sold, the addition was made for the sale proceeds of Rs.5.22 crore and also the claim of agricultural income of Rs.7,35,930/- was denied assessing income at Rs.5,29,35,930/-. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) and filed various

Ushakiron Movies Private Limited, Ramoji Film City vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 541/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.541/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Ushakiron Movies (P) Ltd Vs. Acit Ramoji Film City, Hyderabad Circle 5 (1) Pan:Aaacu2689L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate V. Siva Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/05/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate V. Siva KumarFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(i)

production. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 30/10/2017 declaring total income of Rs.27,87,35,960/- and agricultural income of Rs.8,21,346/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer inter alia made an addition/disallowance of claim of deduction

K. Venkatesan (HUF), Salem vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1) Salem, Salem

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2945/CHNY/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Vijaideepan, JCIT
Section 10(37)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 194I

declaring income from house property of Rs.8,40,000/-, income from other sources (interest income) of Rs.3,82,524/- and agricultural income of Rs.4,13,150/-. The assessee had not shown any capital gains on the sale of land as the same is exempt from taxation. The reason given ... applies in the case of income that is assessable to tax. We also find that the AO, CPC does not take into account the agricultural income declared in the return 6 of income when comparing the gross receipts of the ROI with that of the Form 26AS. This is evident

DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat vs. Ranidan Meghraj Gandhi, Surat

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

ITA 886/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri P M Jagasheth, C.A
Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69A

erred in deleting addition of Rs.9,68,240/- on account of unexplained cash credit claimed as agricultural income as the assessee had failed to submit supporting documents/ evidences in respect of agricultural activity before the AO. (v) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S. La Opala RG Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

ITA 1891/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsyan, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 80ISection 80l

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

Shashi Prabha Singhania, Neemuch vs. Income-Tax Officer Neemuch, Neemuch

ITA 800/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 44ASection 80CSection 80D

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Roshan Lal, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhiwadi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 50/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. Prateek BasotiaFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 69A

agriculture. 2. Owing to his rural background and limited literacy, the Appellant had never been required to file an Income Tax Return (ITR), as agricultural income 8 Roshal Lal vs. ITO is explicitly exempt from taxation under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Having no taxable income ... later reopened the assessment under Section 148, alleging that the deposits were unexplained. The assessee did not file an Income Tax Return (ITR), as agricultural income is exempt under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act. He contended that the entire deposit was from the sale of agricultural produce

Sushila Devi Jangid, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 7(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 374/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 374/JP/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2010-11 Smt. Sushila Devi Jangid 65, Koshaliya Vihar Hajyawala,Muhana Mandi Ke Pass, Sanganer, Jaipur 302 029 बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward 7(2) Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AFMPJ 2091 P निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Utkarsh Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by :Shri Gautam Sing

For Appellant: Shri Utkarsh Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT -DR a
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250

Madras in case of Parvathi Ganesh V/s. Assessment Unit [2024] 168 taxmann.com 441 (Madras), wherein it is held that --- Where Assessing Officer added agricultural income disclosed by assessee in its return as assessee had not provided documents to substantiate that such income was indeed agricultural income eligible for exemption, since ... assessee before Court filed additional documents to prove that he/she had earned agricultural income, impugned assessment order was to be quashed and assessee was to be given fresh opportunity to place those documents before Assessing Officer for consideration. b. Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in case of Swagatika Rout

Mahadeo Krishna Baad, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 1, Kolhapur, Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 519/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.519/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mahadeo Krishna Baad, V The Income Tax Officer, 596, E-Ward, Parag S Circle-1, Kolhapur. Commercial Arcade, B.J.Chowk, Shahupuri, Kolhapur – 416001. Pan: Aaspb2495A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Deepak S. Sasar – Ca & Shri Arpit D. Dambhare – Ca Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 07.11.2024For Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 145(3)Section 250

FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE HON, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.18,56,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ... ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.18,56,000/-, TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT REJECTION OF AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) OF THE INCOME TAX АСТ, 1961. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. ASSESSING