“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

Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh Chudasama, Vadodara vs. Dy.Comm. of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 353/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

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

Yogendra Choudhary, Indore vs. ITO 1(1), Indore

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

ITA 512/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Bagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,15,000/- by alleging this amount as unexplained cash credit u/s 69A. That the assessee was having agricultural income of Rs.3,03,230/- during the year. The amount of Rs.3,15,000/- mainly represents out of this agricultural income. The addition of Rs.3 ... facts are that the assessee is owner of agricultural lands and he was engaged in agricultural activities during the year under appeal, from where agricultural income of Rs. 3,03,230/- has been earned and declared in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148, (among other incomes). I.T.A

Dashrath Kumar Sharma, Jpr, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 7(4), Jpr, Jaipur

ITA 647/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 647/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Dashrath Kumar Sharma 73, Pancholiya Ka Mohalla, Kanota, Jaipur – 303 012 बनाम The ITO Vs. Ward 7(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: EAJPS 0594A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate & राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by Shri Hemang Gargieya, Advocate :

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 68

well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition made of Rs. 38,76,456/-on account of agricultural income declared initially ignoring the fact and legal position that the same was declared at NIL in the revised ROI and without bringing any evidence on record ... facts related to the disputes are that the assessee efiled return of income on 30.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 2,05,280/- and agricultural income of Rs. 38,76,456/- which was included for rate purposes. The case of was selected for limited scrutiny though CASS. After issuance

Aditya Garden, Kolkata vs. Assessment Unit Ward 37(1), Govt Place

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

ITA 2147/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2147/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Aditya Garden,………………………….……..……Appellant 13, D.L. Roy Street, Beadon Street, Kolkata-700006 [Pan:Abrfa4730F] -Vs.- Assessment Unit,………………………….……...Respondent Ward-37(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Dubey, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: February 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 17, 2025 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)

firm, which filed its return of income for the assessment year 2021-22 on 08.12.2021 declaring total income of Rs.7,770/- and net agricultural income of Rs.27,66,250/- which was claimed as exempt. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS for scrutiny to examine the issue ... Large Agricultural Income’ as the assessee has not filed return for last two years. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 28.06.2022 and duly delivered to e-filing Portal of the assessee as well as on the registered mail

Krishnaraj Singh HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO-WD-6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the orders of the authorities below are set aside and the AO is directed to delete the additions made of Rs

ITA 1387/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 131Section 139(4)Section 250Section 69A

assessee has been examined and not found fully tenableas the assessee has ancestral property but prior to demonetization period HUF was not created and agriculture income was not shown by any member or coparcener of HUF.After the declaration of demonetization, Sh.Krishnaraj Singh Jasana has declared himself as the Karta ... date of incorporation of the HUF is 01.04.2016 in which no coparcener’s name has been mentioned. The assessee has not declared any agriculture income its ITR filed for relevant A.Y. 2017-18 However the list provided with the reply dated 05.10.2018the assessee has received

Sant Kumar Suri, Nurpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 336/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ “बी”, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID

Vipulbhai Shendhabhai Patel, Patan, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Patan, Gujarat

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

ITA 1952/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S. V Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 115HSection 139Section 143(2)Section 44A

deposited in bank accounts. In as much as, assessee is doing construction business and out of business income and withdrawals from bank accounts and agricultural income, cash was deposited during demonetization period. These facts are disclosed in Return u/s 139 and Form No. 26AS of the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena, Jaipur

ITA 288/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev sogani, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

assessment order. The ground wise adjudication of the appeal is as under. 1.) Ground 1: ADDITION OF RS. 53,37,390/- U/S 68 TREATING AGRICULTURE INCOME AS INCOME GENERATED THROUGH UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 1.1). The learned AO had carried addition of Rs.53,37,390/- on account of agriculture in come shown ... belonging to someone else and therefore, in absence of ownership of agriculture land, the income can not be treated as agriculture income and therefore shall be treated as unexplained cash credit as per section 68 of the IT Act. 1.3). The appellant responded that the underlined land was purchased

Nareshkumar Kantilal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1631/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 250

NFAC, [CIT(A)], Delhi (for short CIT(A)” upholding the addition of Rs.1,55,610/- made by A.O towards agriculture income as unexplained income is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2.1 The ld. CIT(A), Delhi has grievously erred in law and or on facts ... grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.1,55,610/- made by A.O towards agriculture income as unexplained income. 3.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A), Delhi in upholding the addition of Rs.1,55,610/- made

Swarnalatha Police, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Charyt & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Pradhan, DR

Section 144Section 69A

that the assessee has valid sources for the cash deposits made during the demonetization period and also ignored the fact that the assessee declared agricultural income in the returns of income filed in the previous years. He further contended that even the assessee’s brother was not cross examined ... during the demonetization period. We have also gone through the income tax returns filed by the assessee and find that the assessee had declared agricultural income as well as the earnings from her tuition fee in the previous years in the returns of income filed. The assessee had also proved

Sanah Begum, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 1383/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Section 144

entire investments towards the Residential property through banking channels out of the accumulated balance in the banks and the Cash deposits out of the Agricultural income which is duly disclosed in the return of Income and confirmed the addition without using the powers vested on him is coterminous with that ... Residential property through banking channels out of accumulated balance on which interest disclosed from year to year and the Cash deposits out of the Agricultural income which is duly disclosed in the return of Income and 4. For these and other reasons that may be urged at the time

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudur vs. Sireesha Pochareddy, Chinthavaram

In the result, appeal of the Revenue ITA

ITA 1270/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Income Tax PractitionerFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr AR

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 275(1)(c)

individual and filed her return of income on 13.10.2018 for the impugned assessment year 2017-2018 admitting taxable income of Rs.4,98,980/- besides agricultural income of Rs.25,000/-. The case of the assessee has been selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment has been completed u/sec.143

Nalla Devender Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1190/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Charyt & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sreekar Reddy, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 144Section 147Section 154Section 69A

assessee”), assessee preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual senior citizen, drawing pension income and agricultural income. Assessment in the case of the assessee was completed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income

Pandhiyarajhun Navnithkrishnan, Theni vs. DCIT Ward 1, Theni

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

ITA 3306/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3306/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A.G.Sathyanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R.Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee has filed his return of income on 16.10.2017, showing income of Rs. 3,19,670/- and agricultural income of Rs.3,05,567. The A.O made addition of Rs.31,20,000/- as profit earned from the sale of land as assessee was engaged

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1655/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 6(1)

admission that the amount in question was laid out or expended for the cultivation, upkeep or maintenance of immature plants from which no agricultural income was derived during the previous year. An admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 115/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Dharamveer, Pilibhit vs. Income Tax Officer, Pilibhit

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

ITA 57/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Dharamveer V. Income Tax Officer R/O Mohalla Bakhtawar Lal Ward 2(4) Barah Patthar Chauraha Pilibhit-1 Tehsil Bisalpur Pilibhit Tan/Pan:Amvpd5162F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Veerender Kumar, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Veerender Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 24.03.2018, declaring a total income of Rs.2,75,590/- and agricultural income of Rs.1,52,500/-. The case of the assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS to examine the issue of cash deposit during

Duraisamy Suguna, Vellore vs. ACIT, Cirlce-1, Vellore

ITA 3137/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3137/Chny/2024 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Duraisamy Suguna, The Asst Commissioner Of 30 Thellur Road, V. Income Tax, Sai Nagar, Circle -1, Vellore – 632 010. Vellore. [Pan: Dsxps-6094-C] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. M. Karunakaran, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025

For Appellant: Mr. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 69A

husband had an income of Rs.76,86,730/- in the assessment year 2017-18 and the HUF had an income of Rs.12.55 lakhs including agricultural income of Rs.1 lakh. The appellant therefore submits that they had sufficient sources for making the advances for purchase of the land. The only mistake

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambala Cantt vs. Gurvinder Singh, Ambala

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 607/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 68

with the explanation of the assessee and he made the additions. He further made additions which was otherwise deposited by the assessee out of agriculture income. 3. Dissatisfied with the order of the AO, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). He filed written submissions which ... total amount received as on 21/12/2013 of Rs. 2,41,50,000/-. This advance amount and the agricultural income of Rs. 4,88,500/- totaling of Rs. 2,46,35,800/- was deposited in his bank account. It is further submitted that Rs. 24,354/- was earned as accumulated interest

Manju Vani Chigurupati, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 363/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.363/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) V. Manju Vani Chigurupati Acit – Circle -2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex #16, K.C.P. Colony Kanuru, Vijayawada-520007 M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aazpc9498B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

case are that, assessee is an individual filed her return of income on 11.08.2017 admitting a total income of Rs. 17,71,080/- and agricultural income of Rs. 80,000/-. Assessee derived her income from House property and income other sources. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and accordingly