“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

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

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

Harinath Reddy Devireddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1245/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234A

Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for AY 2013-14 declaring an income of Rs.2,12,150/- along with agricultural income of Rs.3,26,980/- 4. The A.O. based on information that the assessee had though during the subject year sold two immovable properties

Harinath Reddy Devireddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1244/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234A

Kunvarji Bhachu Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 31(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1190/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) Kunvarji Bhachu Shah V/S. Acit-31(2), Mumbai Flat 301, Shivaratan बिधम Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Building, Hardevibai Chs, Kurla Complex, Bandra Caves Road, Near Kulkarni East, Mumbai-400051 Hospital, Jogeshwari East S.O., Mumbai-400060 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacps2608A Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivasthavFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh

Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

without appreciating the fact that the Learned ACIT, Circle 31(2), Mumbai disallowed 1/3 of the agriculture income on ESTIMATE BASIS and thus the question of concealment of income or filing inaccurate particulars of income just does not arise. 3. The Learned CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi has erred ... levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 29.09.2015, as the assessee’s claim of agricultural income of Rs. 54,35,000/- had been partly disallowed, and it was held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income which led to concealment of income

Bhanu Prakash Bhargava, Datia vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Gwalior

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 576/AGR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.576/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) Sh. Bhanu Prakash Bhargava Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Vs. Ward No. 7, Purane Jail K Ward 1(3), Gwalior. Datia (Mp). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Apspb-3917-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Aligarh [Cit(A)] On 20-05-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 22- 11-2017. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Made Addition Of Bank Credit For Rs.22.50 Lacs For Want Of Sufficient Evidences From The Assessee. The Assessee Is Stated To Have Earned Agricultural Income From Leased Land. The Ld. Cit(A), Considering Assessee’S Submissions, Restricted The Impugned Addition To Rs.7.15 Lacs Against Which The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. 2. From The Case Records, It Emerges That The Assessee Primarily Derives Income From Agricultural Activities On Leased Land. The Assessee

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144

made addition of bank credit for Rs.22.50 Lacs for want of sufficient evidences from the assessee. The assessee is stated to have earned agricultural income from leased land. The Ld. CIT(A), considering assessee’s submissions, restricted the impugned addition to Rs.7.15 Lacs against which the assessee is in further

Rameshwar Dayal Sharma, Ambah vs. ITO-1, Morena

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 564/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.564/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2015-16) Rameshwar Dayal Sharma Income-Tax Officer-1, बनाम/ Exchange Ke Pass, Jagga Morena. Vs. Chauraha, Ambah, Morena. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bdypr9626P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh [Cit(A)] On 06-11-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 27-12-2017. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Made Addition Of Cash Deposit For Rs.10 Lacs For Want Of Sufficient Evidences From The Assessee Though The Assessee Stated That The Deposit Of Rs.6.90 Lacs Were Sourced From Earlier Withdrawals. The Ld. Cit(A) Partially Accepted The Claim & Restricted The Addition To The Extent Of Rs.3 Lacs. The Plea Of Past Savings & Agricultural Income Was Not Accepted. Aggrieved, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)

partially accepted the claim and restricted the addition to the extent of Rs.3 Lacs. The plea of past savings and agricultural income was not accepted. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2. We find that the claim of the assessee is partially substantiated. By granting concession

Anil Kumar Gautam, Hathras vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(5), Hathras

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 111/AGR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 111/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) Sh. Anil Kumar Gautam Income-Tax Officer बनाम/ Pragati Puram, Sadabad Ward 3(5), Hathras. Vs. Hathras (Up). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Auzpk-1859-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Sh. Gagan Baghel &Bijendra Baghel, Adv.- Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012- 13Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] On 25-01-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] On Best Judgment Basis U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 28-11-2019. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Made Addition Of Cash Deposit For Rs.20.45 Lacs Out Of Total Deposits Of Rs.32.45 Lacs Though The Assessee Submitted That He Sold His Agricultural Land Or Rs.16 Lacs Which Was Sourced To Make These Deposits. The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Assessment Against Which The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 5 Days In The Appeal Which Stand Condoned.

For Appellant: S/Sh. Gagan Baghel &Bijendra Baghel, Adv.-For Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144

stand condoned. 2. The Ld. AR has stated that the assessee is having sufficient agricultural land holdings out of which the assessee has earned agricultural income. The Ld. AR also stated that the assessee obtained PNB Krishi Card Loan for Rs.2.15 Lacs and transferred an amount of Rs.3 Lacs from

Sh Manveer Singh, Aligarh vs. I.T.O, Ward -1(2), Aligarh

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 433/AGR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Gargh, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 44A

made addition of cash deposit of Rs.28.36 Lacs, the source of which could not be satisfactorily explained by the assessee. The assessee declared agricultural income as well as business income u/s 44AD. Before lower authorities, it was stated that the cash was deposited out of agricultural proceeds and past savings

Baldev Singh Pandher(Deceased) Through L/H Sh. Tanvir Singh, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Ludhiana

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 779/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.779/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Baldev Singh Pandher (Deceased) Ito, Ward 3(1), बनाम/ Through L/H Sh. Tanvir Singh Ludhiana. Po Sangowal, Village Rania Via Jaspal Vs. Banger, Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Chapp-4840-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Cit(A)] Dated 15-05-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 21-11-2019. The Deceased Assessee Is Represented By His Legal Heir Shri Tanvir Singh Who Has Filed Paper-Book Supporting The Case Of The Deceased Assessee. However, At Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. Left With No Option, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69A

remaining amount of Rs.16 Lacs as undisclosed income u/s 69A. The Ld. CIT(A) granted further benefit of Rs.10.57 Lacs for returned income and agricultural income and confirmed the addition of Rs.13.42 Lacs against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. Upon perusal of cash flow statement

Lintas Employees Recreation Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 32/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 164Section 2

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

Lintas Employees Recreation Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 31/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 164Section 2

Pushp Raj Bohra, Jalore vs. Pr. CIT – 1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 374/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

show cause notice no specific deficiency in the enquiry made by Ld. AO has been identified and only vague allegation that claim of agricultural income of Rs.58,17,777/- has not been verified properly was made. Order so framed may kindly be declared as void ab initio as contrary ... declaring total income of Rs. 50,27,590/- and it was revised on the same day declaring same amount of total income except an agriculture income of Rs. 58,17,777/-. The case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 for the year

Mr. Charat Singh, Nawanshahar vs. Income Tax Officer, Nawanshahr

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 577/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No.577/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 282Section 69A

issue of cash deposit in bank account is to be explained with supporting documentary evidences relating to agricultural lands holdings and documentary evidences of agricultural income. 7. As such in the interest of justice , we remand the matter back to the Ld. first appeal authority , to adjudicate the issue

Amarjit Singh HUF, Baghapurana, Moga vs. ITO Ward 1, Moga

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 307/ASR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270A

/National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in upholding the addition made by AO amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/- treating the agricultural income as income from other sources. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) NFAC, has erred in confirming the addition, as there ... other source other than the agricultural income. 5. Without prejudice to above the additions made are unjust and highly excessive. 6, Without prejudice to above the AO has erred in initiating penalty u/s 270A of the Act. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter to amend the above

Shrikant Sharma, Dhamdha, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 169/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Raipur21 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shrikant Sharma Village: Birjhapur, Taluka : Dhamdha, Dist. Durg-491 331 (C.G.) Pan: Cayps4948D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

course of proceedings before the revenue authorities, it has been pointed out by the assessee that he is an agriculturist/farmer and having agricultural income and the source of the cash deposits is from such agriculture proceeds. However, the fact remains that the assessee has neither filed return of income originally ... SEBI registered broker and therefore, in the remand report the A.O has mentioned that there arises a doubt whether the cash deposits are from agricultural income or from income received through transaction of shares. 7. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the earlier

Jitender Singh, Indri vs. Income Tax Officer, Karnal

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 109/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

That being the case, it could be safely concluded that the impugned cash deposits, although not satisfactorily reconciled, prima facie represent the assessee’s agricultural income only wherein cash component could not be altogether denied. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restrict the impugned

Mr. Madeneralu Annegowda Subbegowda, Chikmagalur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chickmagalur

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

ITA 2352/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri N Ramaraju, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 250Section 69

deposited on 21/11/2016 and 22/11/2016, shortly before being transferred into fixed deposits. Due to the absence of evidence proving the genuineness of the claimed agricultural income, the AO concluded that the entire deposit of Rs. 15,28,500 was unexplained investment. Accordingly, it was brought to tax under section

Sri Doddanara Mallappa Manjunatha, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shimoga

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2018/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for department

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

individual and deriving income from partnership firm M/s. D. M. Manjunath & Sons, Arecanut Merchants & Commission Agents, Shimoga amounting to Rs.80,320/- and also has agricultural income of Rs.46,35,180/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the agricultural income for the AY 2018-19. Accordingly, notices u/s.143 ... served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed Rs.7,48,000/- towards expenditure on agricultural income, however, all the related expenditure was already claimed in the Firm's account on monthly basis, which shows the double claim of expenditure. In this

Sri. Thimmaish Srinivas, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1916/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing counsel for department

Section 115BSection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

addition to the extent of Rs. 5,12,400/- from out of the original addition of Rs. 10,12,400/- in respect of agricultural income reported by the appellant and directing treatment of the portion of agricultural income sustained as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act under the facts ... appellant's case. Sri Thimmaiah Srinivas, Bangalore Page 2 of 8 2.1 The learned CIT[A] erred in sustaining a portion of the agricultural income reported by the appellant and ought to have accepted the entire agricultural income of Rs. 10,12,400/- reported by the appellant instead of determining

Sri. Maddur Ananthaswamy Srinath, Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chitradurga

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

ITA 1579/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri N Ramaraju, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 250Section 69

Shrikant Sharma, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 148/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Raipur17 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.148/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shrikant Sharma Village: Birjhapur, Taluka: Dhamdha, Dist: Durg-491 331 (C.G.) Pan: Cayps4948D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 5