“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

Ram Gopal Tripathi, Lucknow vs. Assessment Unit, Delhi

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

ITA 21/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraram Gopal Tripathi V. Assessment Unit Purseni, Mohanlalganj, Income Tax Department, Lucknow-226301. Delhi. Pan: Amept4291J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

adding an amount of Rs.8,37,000/- under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being cash deposited out of cash receipts from agricultural income of the assessee which is duly verifiable. 3. Because, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order ... verifiable from the bank statement of the assessee as the assessee does not have any other source of income other that interest income and agricultural income. 4. Because, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has passed the order without providing the assessee with

Saroj Dewan, H.No 33 Shakti Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana vs. Ward-4, Yamuna Nagar, Jurisdiction Assessing Officer, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 720/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Mar 2025AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 148Section 151Section 69

such transactions were done in cash & not backed by any registered document or any document which has legal evidentiary value. The claim of agricultural income of husband is general in nature without any agricultural land holding details and sale of agricultural produce evidences submitted. The claim of son's income

Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward, Tirupati vs. Sree Ssv Gate Society, Tirupati

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and C

ITA 1214/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1214/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Income Tax Officer Vs. Sree Ssv Gate Society Exemption Ward Tirupati Tirupati Pan:Aagts4803D (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O No.1/Hyd/2025 आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1214/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sree Ssv Gate Society Vs. Income Tax Officer Tirupati Exemption Ward Pan:Aagts4803D Tirupati (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 269SSection 269sSection 271DSection 274

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

Priya Naresh Athavale, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 307/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2017-18 Priya Naresh Athavale, Income Tax Officer-19(2)(4) C/O. Ca Himanshu Gandhi, Piramal Chambers, 16Th Floor, D Wing, Vs. Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Trade World Building, Lalbaugh, Parel, Kamala Mills Compound, Mumbai Lower Parel, Mumbai Pan : Agzpa7288D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Himanshu Gandhi (Virtually) Revenue By: Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi (Virtually)For Respondent: Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Sr.DR

said deposits, the assessee submitted that she owns 55 acres of land and the funds have been accumulated over the year out of her agricultural income and other savings. It was submitted that she is a widow with no children and hence her domestic expenses were low. She also furnished ... possibility of generation of unaccounted income from any other sources was not there. He also observed that even if the assessee had concealed agricultural income, the same is, in any way, not taxable. Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) restricted the addition to 50% of the deposits made. Accordingly

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Span India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 801/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 145Section 145(3)

facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income for AY 2013-14 on 17.09.2013 declaring income of Rs.8,39,220/- and agricultural income of Rs.60,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly, notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income ... assessing officer has erred in computing the total income at Rs.16,58,620.00 by estimating the Net Profit @1% of the total turnover alongwith Agriculture Income at Rs.60,000.00 as against declared income of Rs.8,39,220.00 alongwith Agriculture Income at Rs.60,000.00. The CIT(A) erred in also sustaining

Denish Khodidas Patel, Rajkot vs. Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.356/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Denish Khodidas Patel Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 Raag Mahavir Society, Street Rajkot No.2, Nirmala Convent School Road, Rajkot – 360005, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agipp1382Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Respondent By Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am:

Section 147Section 263Section 50C

filed his return of income for assessment year (AY) 2016-17, on 10.10.2016, declaring total income of Rs. 3,86,070/- and agricultural income of Rs. 20,88,692/-. The assessment was finalized under section 147 the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 24.03.2022, accepting returned income. 4. Later ... individual and has filed his return of income for A.Y.-2016- 17 on 10/10/2016, declaring total income of Rs. 3,86,070 /- and Net agricultural income of Rs. 20,88,692/-. During the Financial Year 2015- 16, relevant to the Asst. Year 2016-17 the assessee, along with other

Kiritkumar Mansukhbhai Joshi, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2, Bardoli

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

ITA 1087/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1087/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Kiritkumar Mansukhbhai Joshi, Vs. The Ito, B-21, Sanjivani Khand Udhyog Ward – 2, Housing Society, Nr.Sajivani Hospital, Bardoli N.H. No.8, Chalthan, Palsana, Surat - 394305, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afqpj8443M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh M. Upadhyay, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr-Dr Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/03/2025

Section 115BSection 250Section 253(3)Section 68

Facts of the case in brief are that assessee filed his return of income on 19.09.2017, declaring total income of Rs.4,39,286/- and agriculture income of Rs.4,96,740/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. The AO issued show cause notice on 21.09.2018. In response to show cause ... before AO and CIT(A). He has given copy of cash book, details of bank account, summary of source of cash deposits, evidence of agricultural income and copies of ITR and computation of income for AYs.2012- 13 to 2018-19. He submitted that Rs.3,61,000/- was received from

Takhatsinh F Dodia, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Bharuch

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

ITA 1071/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1071/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Takhatsinh F. Dodia, Vs. The Acit, 5, Guru Krupa Society, Opp – Utran Circle – 1, Health Centre, Utran, Surat - 394105 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Alnpd6029Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Karan Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/03/2025

Section 139(5)Section 250Section 270ASection 5Section 69A

Appeals) was justified in making addition of Rs.28,12,500 on merely making a presumption that - no expenditure has been incurred to earn agriculture income. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in making addition of Rs.28 ... ground that tax rebate on agriculture income was deliberately claimed at higher amount. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in making addition of Rs.28,12,500 by disregarding the rectification/revise claim made by the appellant during

Gutta Jagan Mohan Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of both the Assessee’s

ITA 82/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA D Anil KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr AR

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

assessed the long term capital gains of the assessee at Rs.97,55,884/-; made addition of unexplained money of Rs.3 lakhs on account of agricultural income; made addition of 5 ITA.Nos.1349/Hyd./2024 & ITA.No.82/Hyd./2025 Rs.3,27,257/- by disallowing deduction claimed under Chapter-VI and determined the total

Padmavathi Gutta, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of both the Assessee’s

ITA 1349/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA D Anil KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr AR

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Laxmikant Gurappa Tyapi, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Belagavi

ITA 7/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 007/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Laxmikant Gurappa Tyapi 302, Maruthi Devara Gudi Oni, Artagal, Belgaum, Dist. Belgaum Pan : Aeupt2660K . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Belgaum. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr S Manikandan [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04/03/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068116925(1) Dt. 29/08/2024 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. 18/11/2022 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The National Faceless E- Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2017- 18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr S Manikandan [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

records it revealed that; the assessee is an individual who filed his return of income on 20/03/2018 declaring NIL taxable income with an agricultural income of ₹3,02,272/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and in the event of failure to adduce credible evidence and offer

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Nagpur vs. Sonu Monu Agro Private Limited, Nagpur

In the result, Department's appeal stands dismissed

ITA 62/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A(1)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in treating income from production of mushrooms as agricultural income. 3. Any other ground which may be raised at the time of hearing with the permission of Hon'ble ITAT." The assessee is a corporate ... last at column No. 5C(1) scheduled BP of ITR the assessee abrutply claimed an amount of Rs. 7,25,19,339/- as agriculture income out of the net profit of business of Rs. 9,01,43,318/- determined under the head -Income from business on profession. During the course

Gunavantraya, Gulbarga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Gulbarga

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

ITA 1866/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Venkatesh V., D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

made in the bank account. The assessee during the course of assessment proceeding submitted that he had two sources of income i.e. his own agricultural income as well as income from selling of agricultural produce of other farmers living in the vicinity. Further, in proof of being an agriculturist ... supporting document. Further, no copy of bills for the purchase of seeds, agricultural products, fertilizers, etc. with respect to the proof related to the agricultural income has been furnished by the assessee and accordingly AO held that all credit entries amounting to Rs.72,24,910/- made during the year

Madhuben Narottambhai Patel, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward-3, Navsari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 967/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.967/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Madhuben Narottambhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, बनाम/ C/O Modern Furniture, Navsari, Room No.206, Income Vs. Brahman Faliya, Khergam Tax Officer, Char Pool, Awabaug, Road, Chikhli, Navsari-396 521 Navsari-396 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bsppp 1158 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 27/02/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

appellant’s bank account with Bank of India, Chikhli Branch, Valsad ignoring the fact that the appellant is a senior citizen, having only agriculture income. ITA No.967/SRT/2024/AY.12-13 Madhuben N Patel 2. Facts in brief are that assessee is a senior citizen and deposited cash of Rs.2 ... regarding deposit of said amount in bank. The assessee submitted the bank statement and stated that said amount was received out of agricultural income of HUF of the family. The assessee did not furnish From- 7/12, bills, vouchers etc. Therefore, AO made addition of Rs.3,38,449/- and total income

Balwant Singh Dhindsa, Adv. So Kartar Singh, #185 Street No. 11, Punia Colony, Sangrur, Punjab vs. ITO Ward Sangrur, Punjab

In the result, appeal of the assessee is

ITA 800/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Feb 2025AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

explained as follows : S. No. Amount Remarks 1. 4,50,000/- Cash received by the assessee during the year under consideration as agriculture income which have also been declared by the assessee in his ITR filed on 09.12.2019. 2. 4,00,000/- Cash received by the assessee against the agreement ... page no. 19-32 of the paper book. During the year under consideration, the assessee has earned a net of Rs.4,50,000/- as agriculture income which has duly been declared by the assessee in his return of income filed in response to the notice

Natarajan Rajkumar, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3418/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3418/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 69

response to the show case notice, the assessee claimed that the cash deposit of Rs. 27,39,424/- was solely out of the agricultural income. However, the assessee failed to produce documentary proof as the cash deposits were from agricultural income. The AO, therefore, made entire cash deposits as unexplained ... find any error in the decision of the AO who relied upon the estimate provided by Village Administrative Officer and restricted the possible agriculture income to Rs. 3,00,000/- in the period FY 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. 5.3 I have carefully gone through grounds of appeal

Kalimuthu, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-4, Coimbatore

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

ITA 3348/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3348/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kalimuthu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Moolakkadai South Thottam, Sokkanur Non Corporate Ward 4, Post, Kinathukadavu (Vil) , Pollachi Coimbatore. Taluk, Coimbatore 642 109. [Pan:Bvjpk6367B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 426 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 144Section 69A

assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and issued statutory notices. The assessee admitted income from sale of coconuts and also claimed agricultural income of ₹.20,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee deposited ₹.17,00,000/- in specified bank notes (SBNs) in his bank account during demonetization ... period. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice requesting the assessee to explain why the cash deposits during the demonetization period and the agricultural income admitted in the return of income should not be added to the total income of the assessee. However, there was no response from the assessee

Zareena Syed, Kanyakumari vs. ITO, Ward 1, Kanyakumari

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

ITA 1141/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1141/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Zareena Syed, V. Ward -1, 20/7, Hawa Avenue Street No. Nagercoil. 10, Vedakaran Kudiyiruppu, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari – 629 002. [Pan: Abgpz-7612-L ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

building in that document and hence rejected the claim of cost of improvement and disallowed the same. The assessee had not declared the agricultural income in the return of income filed and not explained any other sources of income for deposit of cash into bank accounts, the AO had made

Smt. Jayanthi Seeman, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 1 (2), Chennai

ITA 773/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.: 770, 771, 772 & 773/Chny/2020 निर्धा रणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Jayanthi Seeman, C/O. Aparna Nandakumar, Advocate & Tax Consultant, J Nandakumar & Poojesh J (Advocates) No. 6, Ramakrishna Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Acypj-0739-K] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Assessee By प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward -1(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl.Cit 20.02.2025 28.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, Chennai, All Dated 30.07.2020 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2013-14.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69

amounting to Rs.1,01,59,959/- without considering the confirmation letters issued by the landlords, cash deposits out of prior withdrawals, capital contribution and agricultural income. 3. The Id. CIT (A) has further erred in rejecting the interest amount of Rs.7,48,842/-, which is nothing but interest paid ... unexplained u/s.69 of the Act: In support of Cash inflow of Rs.92,29,509/- (Disallowance of Rs.1,01,59,959/- Minus Rs.9,30,450/- agricultural income allowed by the Ld.CIT(A)) the assessee had submitted the following details of source which were not considered by the AO as well

Smt. Jayanthi Seeman, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 1 (2), Chennai

ITA 772/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.: 770, 771, 772 & 773/Chny/2020 निर्धा रणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Jayanthi Seeman, C/O. Aparna Nandakumar, Advocate & Tax Consultant, J Nandakumar & Poojesh J (Advocates) No. 6, Ramakrishna Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Acypj-0739-K] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Assessee By प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement V. Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward -1(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl.Cit 20.02.2025 28.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, Chennai, All Dated 30.07.2020 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2013-14.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69