← 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

Sh. Surinder Paul Singh, Derabassi vs. ITO Ward-5(2), Chandigarh

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 487/CHANDI/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.487/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Surinder Paul Singh Ito Ward 5(2) Village Dera Jagadhari Chandigarh-160017 बनाम/ Vs. Ward No17, Post Office Derabassi, Punjab-140507 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aqhps-6902-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Aman Parti (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 Chandigarh [Cit(A)] Dated 03-09-2019 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 31-03-2014. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 936 Days In The Appeal. The Ld. Ar Sought Condonation Of Delay & Tabulated That Excluding Covid-9 Pandemic Lockdown Period, The Effective Delay Is Only For 132 Days (02-

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. AmanFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

confirmation of addition of cash deposits for Rs.26.61 Lacs and Rs.21.90 Lacs respectively. The assessee is stated to be an agriculturist and it filed agriculture income for Rs.8 Lacs. It was noted by Ld. AO that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.106.77 Lacs in two of its bank accounts ... filed cash flow statement. Total sale proceeds from agricultural and popular trees were shown to be Rs.37.81 Lacs and Rs.21.90 Lacs respectively. The net agricultural income was shown to be Rs.52.43 Lacs as against agricultural income of Rs.8 Lacs as shown by the assessee. 3.2 In support of sale proceeds

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Aurangbad vs. Sanjay Suganchand Kasliwal, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1339/PUN/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1339/Pun/2024

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271DSection 69D

Shri Sanjay S. Kasliwal. Ans. Sir, the said advance is paid by legitimate sources of my income such as business income & agricultural income in HUF status. Also, the cash advance is reflected in my books of account. I will submit the details of source with evidence within two days

Ch.Chandrasekhar Naidu, Proddatur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-(2), Hyderabad

ITA 834/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 37

25/11/2010. Subsequently, the assessee filed his return of income for A.Y 2011-12 on 07/03/2012, declaring an income of Rs.2,85,940/- a/w agriculture income of Rs.1,95,400/-. Thereafter, the assessee e-filed a revised return of income on 07/01/2013, declaring an income ... agriculture income of Rs.1,70,405/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, dated 29/06/2012 was issued to him. 4. The A.O. framed the assessment vide his order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, dated

Rajagopal Govindaswami Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-15(2), Chennai

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

ITA 182/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.182/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajagopal Govindaswami Kumar, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.1&2, Mcn Nagar, Vs. Non Corporate Ward-15(2), Prakasam Road, Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan: Aqepk 2302F]

For Appellant: Shri K. Anand, C.A GHFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee is an individual and filed return of income admitting total income of Rs. 3,30,630/- and agricultural income of Rs.39,00,000/-. The A.O passed order u/s. 143(3) of the Act, making addition of agricultural income of Rs. 39 Lakhs as unexplained credit

Holadagadde Halappagowda Devaraj, Chikmagalur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur

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

ITA 2361/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)
Section 271Section 69A

sales bills and related documents submitted for the subject year and erred in stating that the assesse has failed to prove the genuineness of agricultural income. 5) The learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271 AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For the above ... income for asst. year 2017-18 on 28/1/2018 decaling gross total income of Nil. In the return of income, the assessee admitted net agricultural income of Rs.49,12,893/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. It was also noted during the demonetization

Bhawana Agrwal, Dehradun vs. NFAC-Delhi, Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 174/DDN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bhawana Agarwal, Vs. Nfac-Delhi 3/3, Race Course, Dehradun Pan :Aazpa2029C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

Section 56(2)(vii)

Revenue side that the learned Assessing Officer had in fact framed his assessment on 25th March, 2022, inter alia, making three additions i.e. agricultural income, exemption declined to the extent of Rs. 25,55,250/-, gift claim from husband of Rs.9,00,000/- followed by section ... Rs.29.58 lakhs; respectively, totaling to Rs.64,13,250/-. And that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion has accepted the assessee’s net agricultural income of Rs.7,66,575/- only and upheld the latter twin additions. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved. 4. We have given out thoughtful consideration

Lalita Dheeraj Junghare, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 360/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 69ASection 69C

addition of Rs. 1,22,25,758 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") representing net agriculture income declared during the year. The addition of Rs. 1,22,25,758 under section 69A of the Act is grossly illegal and deserves ... deleted as per law and in the interest of justice. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the net agricultural income of Rs. 1,22,25,758 cannot constitute unexplained money under section 2 Lalita Dheeraj Junghare ITA no.360/Nag./2024

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir.-2(2), Nagpur vs. M/S Mansa Agro Food Processing Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur

ITA 375/NAG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon'Ble & Shri K.M. Roy, Hon'Ble

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

A, C.I.T. Central Cir.- 2(2), Nagpur vs. Shri Dharampal R.Agrawal, Nagpur

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 294/NAG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’‘Bleand

Section 143(3)Section 153A

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in low, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by treating agricultural income of Ra 1,17,510/- as business income. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by treating agricultural income of Rs.1,14,993/- as business income. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir.-2(2), Nagpur vs. M/S Thanjavur Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 178/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’‘Bleand

Section 143(3)Section 153A

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in low, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by treating agricultural income of Ra 1,17,510/- as business income. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by treating agricultural income of Rs.1,14,993/- as business income. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir.-2(2), Nagpur vs. M/S Shree Agrawal Finance India P. Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 175/NAG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’‘Bleand

Section 143(3)Section 153A

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in low, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by treating agricultural income of Ra 1,17,510/- as business income. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by treating agricultural income of Rs.1,14,993/- as business income. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir.-2(2), Nagpur vs. M/S Shree Agrawal Finance India P. Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 174/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’‘Bleand

Section 143(3)Section 153A

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in low, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by treating agricultural income of Ra 1,17,510/- as business income. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by treating agricultural income of Rs.1,14,993/- as business income. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir.-2(2), Nagpur vs. M/S Shree Agrawal Finance India P. Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 173/NAG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’‘Bleand

Section 143(3)Section 153A

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in low, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by treating agricultural income of Ra 1,17,510/- as business income. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by treating agricultural income of Rs.1,14,993/- as business income. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

Jayeshkumar Jayendrabhai Patel, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)(2), Baroda Aykar Bhavan, Race Course, Vadodara 390007, Vadodara

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2026/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Confirmed The Addition Made By The Ao.

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri N. J. Vyas, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

also amount of Rs.1,50,000/- received from his wife on 01.07.2016 out of her savings from beauty parlor business as well as agricultural income received from her parents. The assessee also submitted before 3 ITA No. 2026/Ahd/2024 (Jayeshkumar Jayendrabhai Patel vs. ITO) A.Y. 2017-18 us the affidavit ... materials available on record. Though, the assessee has filed documentary evidences for the cash deposits of Rs.5 Lacs, the source from the wife and agricultural income were not considered by the Ld. CIT(A) and confirmed the addition, which in our considered opinion, is not correct in law. Therefore

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Pgf Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 4591/DEL/2009[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 1998-99 Acit, Central Circle-4, Vs. Pgf Ltd., New Delhi Sco 1042-43, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh Pan No. Aabcp2805N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 57

certain schemes of the company to the depositors. For the year under consideration, the appellant company has filed the return of income showing agricultural income of Rs. 1,82,84,541/- During the scrutiny of the accounts of the appellant, the A.O. made different additions which were deleted

Dhirendra Singh, Mirzapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1), Mirzapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 133/ALLD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Dhirendra Singh V. Income Tax Officer Mangraha, Chunar Ward 3(1) Mirzapur Mirzapur Pan:Bipps5569C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Brij Bhushan Goenka, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 03 2025

For Appellant: Shri Brij Bhushan Goenka, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

father in the form of downloaded statements from Bhulekh Website of Uttar Pradesh which showed that they had sufficient landholding to earn agricultural income and make advances of the amount claimed by the assessee as gift. In the circumstances, there being sufficient reason to consider all the donors as creditworthy

Dharrit Shah, Pune vs. ACIT Cir-6 Pune, Pune

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

ITA 2260/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2260/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Vishal A. Makawane
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 41(1)Section 69C

which are as under : 1. Addition of Rs.11,979/- on account of interest on refund. 2. Addition of Rs.3,78,940/- on account of Agricultural income not supported by any evidences. 3. Addition of Rs.25,716/- u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act on account of failure to deposit the employees ... ld.CIT(A) who gave part relief to the assessee but sustained the action of the Assessing Officer in respect of two additions, namely Agricultural income and non deduction of TDS u/s.194A while paying interest on unsecured loans. 4. Being further aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal

Jaisingh Yadav, Jaipur vs. ACIT-Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee, i

ITA 1088/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Khandelwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

declaring total income at Rs. 11,41,730/-. The assessee has declared income under the head house property, other sources and agricultural income. A search was conducted on 19.11.2016 in the case of Kedia & Yadav Group, Jaipur to which the assessee belongs. Various assets/books of account and documents were found

Gopal Lal Yadav, Jaipur vs. ACIT-Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee, i

ITA 1087/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Khandelwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

declaring total income at Rs. 11,41,730/-. The assessee has declared income under the head house property, other sources and agricultural income. A search was conducted on 19.11.2016 in the case of Kedia & Yadav Group, Jaipur to which the assessee belongs. Various assets/books of account and documents were found

Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh Chudasama, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Vadodara

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

ITA 354/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.353/Ahd/2022 & 354/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh The Dy.Commissioner Of बनाम/ Chudasama Income Tax V/S. C/O.Anil R. Shah (Ca), Circle -1 (2) Shreeji House, 4Th Floor Vadodara – 390 007 B/H. M.J. Library Ahmedabad - 380 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acrpc 1888 M (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Kinjal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 43BSection 68Section 69

Total Disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) 8,55,000/- 5.1. The AR contended that all the lenders are agriculturalist having agricultural income and their other income is below taxable limit. During the course of proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee furnished certificates in form 26A, however ... which were not available before the AO at the time of assessment. The AR has contended that all the lenders are agriculturists with agricultural income and other income below the taxable limit. It has also been submitted that the amounts were borrowed for business purposes and invested in partnership firms