“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

Padam Chand Goyal, Alwar vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1111/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S.Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalpadam Chand Goyal, M/S. Rajasthan Glass House, Shivaji Market, Old Station Road, Alwar, Alwar 301001 Pan No.: Abqpg 6342N ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 139(4)Section 250Section 68

declaring total income at Rs. 8,49,520/- after availing deduction of Rs. 35,894/- under chapter VI-A and declared agricultural income at Rs. 90,000/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices were issued. During the year under consideration the assessee

Niranjanbhai Ishvarbhai Patel, Banaskantha vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Himatnagar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 98/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. D.R

Section 147

assessee. He contended that because of the non-representation of the assessee before the Assessing Officer and also before the CIT(A), the entire agricultural income of the assessee of Rs. 21,67,990/- had been added to his income ,as income from undisclosed sources, in the absence

(Late) Audinarayana Reddy Althuri Rep.by L/R Mahesh Reddy Althuri, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 39/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA D K ChhablaniFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, derived income from long term capital gains, income from other sources and agricultural income. The assessee has not filed return of income for the assessment year 2012-2013 on or before the “due date" provided under section ... assessee on 25.06.2019. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed his return of income on 24.07.2019 admitting total income of Rs.41,810/-; agricultural income of Rs.14,05,376/- after claiming exemption under section 10(38) of the Act to the tune of Rs.5,96,11,906/- towards long

Flex Foods Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle - 27, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3025/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Flex Foods Limited, Vs. Dcit, 305, Third Floor, Bhanot Central Circle-27, Corner, Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf0108K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Adv. Sh. Shivam Malik, Adv. Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2025 Order

Section 10(1)Section 143(3)

idem during the course of hearing that the lower authorities herein have refused to even admit the assessee’s section 10(1) agricultural income exemption claim qua receipts derived from mushroom growing for want of a revised return in light of Goetze India

Kunguman Ganeshan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-11(3), Chennai

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

ITA 295/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 295/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kunguman Ganeshan, Income Tax Officer, 22/59, Mohammed Hussain Street, Vs. Non Corporate Ward -11(3), Royapettah S.O., Royapettah, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 014. [Pan: Bgqpg-5503-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing 18.03.2025 : घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 06.11.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

cash deposits, both during demonetization period and the remaining period, were from earlier cash withdrawals from the same Bank account, jewel loans borrowed, agricultural income and p proceeds from his tyre business. He further submitted that though the ld. CIT(A) duly noted the fresh evidences/written submissions of the assessee

Husna Begam, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana

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

ITA 970/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Adj. Application (Rejected)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr .DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

made out of the sale proceeds of agricultural land amounting to Rs. 78,70,000/- and out of the agricultural income of the assessee and there was legitimate sources for purchase of agricultural land. 6. That the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred while upholding the ex-parte assessment order

Singanamala Sarala, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 200/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: : Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263Section 269S

taken or accepted and the person by whom the loan or deposit or specified sum is taken or accepted, are both having agricultural income and neither of them has any income chargeable to tax under this Act.Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, - (i)"banking company" means a company

M/S. Greens Farm Tech Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1835/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT

assessment year 2012-13. 2. The first issue raised by the assessee is that learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of claim of agricultural income and treating the same as income from other sources. Page 2 of 14 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a private ... year under consideration. The assessee in the return of income for the year under consideration declared business loss of Rs. 14,51,426/- and agricultural income of Rs. 60,42,070/- which was selected for scrutiny. 4. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee’s claim

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir 1(3)(1), Income Tax Department vs. Skate Trades and Agencies Private Limited, Raichur Street Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1663/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhaildy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Room No.535, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Churchgate ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

taxes levied and collected by the Union and distributed between the union and these states. Caluse (1) says that tax on income other than agricultural income shall be levied and collected by the Government of India and distributed between the Union and the states in the manner provided in clause

Abhishek, V. Ismaila Rohtak vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Rohtak

ITA 6072/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Abhishek, Vs. Ito, Ward-3, S/O Sh. Shri Bhagwan, Rohtak 11B, Ismaila Tehsil Sampla, Rohtak-124517 (Pan: Bdzpa4728A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Naveen Gupta, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2025 Order

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

account of cash deposited in the bank account, during demonetization period. Since the source of income of the assessee i.e. agricultural income, is exempt from tax and there is other source of income which could generate unaccounted cash, no addition could be made or sustained for unexplained income. He further

Mr.Suresh Kumar Kakkar, Nawanshahr vs. Income Tax Officer, Nawanshahr

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

ITA 576/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No.576/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 250

various dates, the Ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal without adjudication on merits. 7. We are of the opinion that the issue regarding agricultural income and investment in purchase of agricultural lands (among other issues) needs to be explained with evidence on record. I.T.A. No.576/Asr/2024 4 Assessment Year

ACIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot vs. Jagamal Malde Bhatu, Junagadh

ITA 361/RJT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungaliya, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee has filed his return of income for assessment year 2012–13, on 17.12.2012, declaring total income of Rs. 8,76,410/-, and agricultural income of Rs.15,13,000/-. The assessee`s return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Income tax Act 1961, without any modification ... notice issued u/s.148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, filed e-return of income on 15.04.2019, declaring income of Rs.8,76,410/- and agriculture income of Rs. 15,13,000/-.The assessee has requested to supply the signed copies of reason recorded, the documents for cross verification etc. The assessing officer

Pawan Kumar Singla, Panchkula vs. DCIT, CC-I, Chandigarh

In the result, the assessee's appeal on the various grounds raised

ITA 12/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 132oSection 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)

been mentioned/categorized in the registration land as 'Pahar' where no agricultural activity is possible. Further, the appellant failed to provide any evidence of agricultural income from this land sold. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted as follows:- "The assessee has sold agricultural land during the year under consideration

Pawan Kumar Singla, Panchkula vs. DCIT, CC-I, Chandigarh

In the result, the assessee’s appeal on the various grounds raised is dismissed

ITA 11/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Final Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 132oSection 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)

Ramender Singh, Dehradun vs. Income Tax Officer, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 17/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Ramender Singh, Vs. Ito, 58A, Khurbura Mohalla, Dehradun Uttarakhand (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Cbnps9195N Assessee By : Shri K. K. Juneja, Adv Revenue By: Shri S. K. Chaterjee, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri K. K. Juneja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Chaterjee, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

perused the material available on record. The assessee had disclosed Rs. 2,25,000/- as taxable income and Rs. 5,50,000/- of agricultural income which was claimed as exempt in the return. In the earlier year, the assessee had disclosed agricultural income at Rs. 5 lakhs which was accepted ... revenue. The assessee is a senior citizen and an agriculturist. The assessee has only bank interest income and agricultural income. Despite the explanation given by the assessee in this regard, merely because cash was deposited during demonetization period, a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- was treated as unexplained money

Devendra Singh Cheema, Nainital vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(1), Nainital

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1/DDN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Devendra Singh Cheema, Vs. Ito, Bisht Bhawan Compound, Ward-2(3)(1), Tallital, Nainital, Nainital Uttarakhand (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Adupc2094D Assessee By : Shri Pavan Kumar Nath, Adv Revenue By: Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Kumar Nath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee during the year under consideration had shown gross agricultural receipts of Rs. 37,75,498/- and net agricultural income of Rs. 25,57,697/-. The assessee submitted the entire cash flow statement for the whole financial year 2019-20 along with letter dated 22.01.2022 together with all the bank ... assessee submitted that he has not maintained proper books of account and hence the total credits in the bank account were treated as gross agricultural income as he is merely an agriculturist. The assessee also furnished details of crops grown on the agricultural land proving the agricultural activities. The assessee

Benoy Philip, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Aluva

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

ITA 975/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.P.J.Babu, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

raised is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made u/s.69A of the Act amounting to Rs.51,40,000 disbelieving the agricultural income that was declared by the assessee in his return of income. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: 2 ITA No.975/Coch/2024. Sri.Benoy ... income was filed on 25.09.2020 declaring total income of Rs.5,93,600. In the said return of income, the assessee had also disclosed agricultural income of Rs.51,40,000. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 29.06.2021. Thereafter various notices were

Tejpal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Faridabad

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1716/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1716/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2017-18) Tejpal, 104, Bd Chamber Db Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Alnpt-8023-G बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent C.R Building, Faridabad, Haryana 122001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Aditya Kaushik, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 09/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 31.01.2024, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Solitary Issue Assailed By Assessee In Appeal Is Addition Of Rs.5,63,500/- U/S. 69A Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposits In The Bank Account.

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kaushik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. 2 3. Shri Aditya Kaushik, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee is having agricultural income from land admiring 7 acres approximately in village Lalwe District Palwal, Haryana and is also drawing salary from Haryana Govt. The assessee is having

ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Himalaya International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1024/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Sweety Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

Section 263Section 35A

erred in deleting the addition made by AO on account of non acceptance of cultivation of mushrooms as agricultural income, as the necessary features/characteristics ton treating it as agricultural income do not exist for mushroom cultivation. 2. Whether the CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition made on account ... Brief facts of the issue are that the assessee declared an income of Rs. 20,01,68,000/- earned from growing of mushroom as agricultural income and claimed the same as exempt in its return of income. The Assessing Officer assessed the same as non- agricultural income relying

ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Himalaya International Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 7844/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 263Section 35A

erred in deleting the addition made by AO on account of non acceptance of cultivation of mushrooms as agricultural income, as the necessary features/characteristics ton treating it as agricultural income do not exist for mushroom cultivation. 2. Whether the CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition made on account ... Brief facts of the issue are that the assessee declared an income of Rs.20,01,68,000/- earned from growing of mushroom as agricultural income and claimed the same as exempt in its return of income. The Assessing Officer assessed the same as non- agricultural income relying on the decision