“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

Bhagwan Lal Jha, Patna vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 496/PAT/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Apr 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT

Section 250

noticed that the deposit of Rs.24,79,237/- on various dates in the bank account no. 1143 is substantially out of the agricultural income of the HUF, these funds are available for making this investment which has treated as undisclosed investment. This being so, the additions as made

P Abdul Kareem, Kozhikode vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Kozhikode

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

ITA 255/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 P Abdul Kareem Puthenveetil House Thamarassery Ito Vs. Kozhikode Ward-2(3) Kerala 673 573 Kozhikode Pan No :Ajfpa2972D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rishal K., A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

filed his Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2014-15 on 21-05-2015 electronically declaring income of Rs. 11,97,330.00/- and agricultural income of Rs. 20,08,220/-. The same was accepted u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter the case was selected for limited scrutiny under ... CASS for examining i) Agricultural Income ii) Cash Deposits. Accordingly, notices u/s. 143(3) as well as u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued. During the course of assessment proceeding, the assessee filed cash flow statement to explain the cash deposit with the bank. The AO observed that

Anil Kumar Gupta, Bhopal vs. ITO, 4(3), Bhopal, Office of ITO Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 367/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 69A

sources. 19. The precise facts apropos to this ground are such that assessee declared ‘gross agricultural receipts’ at Rs. 30,06,106/- yielding ‘net agricultural income’ of Rs. 25,64,921/- from a total of 76.65 acres of land [37.25 acres of land owned by assessee (+) 39.40 acres of land ... claimed to have been taken on ‘batai’ from other persons]. However, the AO accepted part of the agricultural income at Rs. 8,19,500/- on the basis of estimated income of Rs. 22,000/- per acre for 37.25 acres of land owned by assessee and rejected extra agricultural income

Shri Salasar Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1186/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Saurav Harsh, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

plot of land from undisclosed source of income, while it has been found, that the source of income was clearly established to be agricultural income, which were lying deposited with M/s. Brar & Sons, wherefrom it was withdrawn by cheque, and was invested, and the AO himself also found the investment

Thangavelu Balachandar, Pallipalayam vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

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

ITA 2310/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 44A

milk sales (declared 1,20,000 u/s. 44AD of the Act) 2 | Consideration on sale from 25,00,000 Agricultural land (exempt) 3__| Net agricultural income (exempt) 23,440 Total 26,43,440 5. | The Ld. AR has submitted that above income do not find place in profit and loss ... sale of milk was not routed through the P&L account and the income has been offered to tax under presumptive taxation. Similarly the agricultural income of Rs.23,440/- has been duly declared as ITA No.2310/Chny/2024 mB-: exempt income. As regard to the consideration on sale of agricultural income

Krishna Plantations Private Limited, Margao vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 106/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 106/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Krishna Plantation Private Limited 15/1452, Nanu House, Varde Valaulikar Rd., Madgao, Goa Pan : Aaack6885G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Madgao, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Smt Bhavya Goyal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ravindra Hattalli [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order 1062943051(1) Dt. 23/04/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 29/01/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Smt Bhavya Goyal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ravindra Hattalli [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)

forestry activities. For the year under consideration the assessee filed its return on 11/01/2019 declaring total income of ₹NIL with a claim for exempt agricultural income of ₹89,78,685/-. The return of income was selected for scrutiny and consequential assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act wherein ... claim of exempt agricultural income was restricted to ₹3,39,540/- and for assessee’s failure to substantiate true nature & source of declared exempt agricultural income of ₹89,78,685/- was added to total income under the head Income from Other Sources. 3. Aggrieved assessee attempted to resolve the dispute

Krishan Kumar Yadav, Alwar vs. ITO Ward, Behror

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

ITA 69/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him. 2

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. & Shri Harsh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 80

during the course of demonetization period in KCC account no 44560500000621 but the assessee has not shown agriculture income in ITR. Hence, it is clear that the assessee has not received amount against agriculture produced. But the assessee has received this amount in other persons and deposited in KCC account ... appellant had deposited Rs.3,19,000/- in KCC account bearing A/c No 44560500000621during the demonetization period (09/11/2016 TO 30/12/2016) and had not shown any agricultural income in his ITR filed. Therefore, the AO inferred that the appellant had received old currency notes from other person and deposited the same

Ritu Dhaka, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 4(4), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 68

balance amount of Rs.6,36,400/- having been retained by her since March, 2013 till the demonetization period. 6 Ritu Dhaka vs. ITO 1. Agricultural income of Rs. 1,07,000/- of F.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 1. Withdrawals of husband from bank account held jointly with husband ... Government Teacher since 2005 (as around 11 years Govt. job) and during the year under consideration appellant had G.T.I. of Rs. 5,46,481/- & Agricultural Income of Rs. 42,000/- during the year under consideration. 2. Moreover, the husband of appellant is also in Govt. Job since 1999 (i.e. around

Nemichand, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(3), Agra

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 229/AGR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.228/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.229/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Nemi Chand Ito-2(1)(3) बनाम/ (Rep. By Smt. Bharti Gupta) Agra Gopal Pura, Shamsabad Vs. Up 283125 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajnpn-1996-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.C. Jain (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Jain (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144

from agricultural activities and trading of fertilizers. It was stated that the assessee and his family members owned agricultural land and the assessee declared agricultural income of Rs.3.05 Lacs and also declared business income of Rs.1.52 Lacs from sale of fertilizers. The deposits were stated to be sourced

Nemichand, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(3), Agra

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 228/AGR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Jain (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144

Babu Chandrathil George, Palarivattom vs. ITO, Non-Corp Ward-1 (1), Cochin

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

ITA 300/COCH/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69B

individual, and for the year under consideration filed his return of income on 31/03/2018, declaring a total income of INR 29,02,000 and agricultural income of INR 3,99,92,915. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS in order to verify the large ... Nedumassery village. The surplus out of the above sale transaction aggregating to INR 3,99,92,915 was claimed by the assessee as agricultural income and exempt. The AO, vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the claim of the assessee on the basis that

Vikas Raosaheb Powar, Shirol, Maharashtra vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ichalkaranji, Maharashtra

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

ITA 2127/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2127/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vikas Raosaheb Powar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Powar Doodh Dairy Terwad, Ichalkaranji, Shirol, Kolhapur- 416106. Pan : Bcwpp6212J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 103 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. We Are Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee That He Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Not Filing The Present Appeal Within Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Raised

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151(2)

notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act. However, the assessee furnished response against one of the notice that 3 transaction pertains to agricultural income, therefore return is not filed. Since the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence in support of above reply, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment

M/S. Gnanasundaram Ravanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 52/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.52/Chny/2025 िनधा7रण वष7 /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Gnanasundaram Ravanan, The Dy. Commissioner Of A-2, No.26 Desika Road, Vs. Income Tax, Mylapore, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai – 600 004. Chennai. [Pan: Aafpr 6480E]

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 69A

confirmed the addition of cash deposits of Rs.17,60,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act, addition of Rs. 3,25,864/- agricultural income, disallowance of TDS claim of Rs. 4,52,233/-, and addition of Rs.9,34,000/- as undisclosed income on credit card payment, due to the non-compliance

Aswathnarayanaiah Rathnamma Raamesh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 188/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 69Section 69ASection 80C

applicable, impugned addition of Rs. 38,84,000 under section 69 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 5. Addition of agricultural income of Rs. 72,50,000 Page 3 of 6 5.1 The learned AO erred in making addition of Rs. 72,50,000 to Income from ... other sources in respect of agricultural income of Rs. 72,50,000 declared by the appellant in the return of income. 5.2 The learned AO erred in making the impugned addition without providing sufficient time to submit the details and documents called for. 5.3 On facts and circumstances

Harvinder Singh Bullar, Vpo Ranjitgarh, Muktsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Muktsar

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

ITA 574/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahayi.T.A. No.574/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee in the months of April and May 2014, it is explained by the Ld. AR of the assessee, to have arisen out of agricultural income from agricultural activity carried out by the assessee on agricultural lands owned and occupied by his parents (in support of which Jamabani of lands

Sri.A. Kamaludeen Thangal, Trivandrum vs. The DCIT, Trivandrum

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

ITA 83/COCH/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2012-13 A. Kamaludden Thangal .......... Appellant Zeenosil, Punnode, Vettiyara P.O. Navaikulam, Trivandrum [Pan: Abppt6728E] Vs. Dcit. Central Circle – 1, Trivandrum .......... Respondent

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

total income of Rs. 13,07,315/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 7,60,000/- disbelieving the agricultural income. He also made addition of Rs. 5,05,165/- as unexplained expenditure incurred towards tuition fee and hostel fee of his son. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal

Jarnail Singh, Nabha Distt. Patiala Punjab vs. Income Tax Officer, Nabha

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

ITA 400/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri N.K. Sahi, C.A. (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 69A

admitted that he deposited cash of Rs. 67,90,000 in his bank account and invested Rs.60,00,000 in time deposit out of agricultural income. However, he did not file any documentary evidence in support of his agricultural income. Accordingly, the assessing officer completed the assessment under the provisions

Dinesh Bohra, Mumbai vs. ITO, W-1, Barmer, Rajasthan

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 373/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Bledinesh Bohra Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Unit 517, Option Primo, Andheri Tax-1, Jodhpur. East, Mumbai-400093 Pan No. Aanpb4468Q Assessee By Shri Gautam Chand Baid, C.A. & Shri Mayank Taparia, Advocate. Revenue By Shri Manoj Kumar Mahar (Cit- D.R.) Date Of Hearing 20.02.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 25.03.2025.

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

directing the AO to reframe the assessment examining applicability of deduction 69A of the Act, to the addition made by him on account of agricultural income not found genuine and thus subjecting the addition to correct rate of tax u/s 115BBE. 2. The assesse has taken the following grounds ... 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

Narayanappa Govindaraju, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central 1(3) Bangalore, Bangalore

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

ITA 1063/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Shraddha N.D., ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel

Section 69A

agriculturist and was not aware about the income tax proceedings. The AO has made addition u/s. 69A of the Act on the agricultural income claimed by the assessee. The assessee has also relied on the medical certificate produced before the lower authorities and requested that if a chance is given

Alok Kumar Jain, Pearl Pleasure vs. ACIT Cir-6, Jaipur, New Cerntral Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Rajasthan

ITA 1191/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) Alok Kumar Jain vs. ACIT/DCIT erred in upholding addition of Rs. 11,10,170/- in respect of agricultural income. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, revise and modify any of the grounds of appeal on, before or in the course ... form of LTCG. 3.3 In the ITR filed the assessee has also claimed an exempt income of Rs. 11,10,170/- as agricultural income. As the assessee failed to justify the claim by filling the required document the said income was considered as other income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved