“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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 771/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.: 770, 771, 772 & 773/Chny/2020 िनधा" रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Jayanthi Seeman, Income Tax Officer, C/O. Aparna Nandakumar, V. Non-Corporate Ward -1(2), Advocate & Tax Consultant, Chennai. J Nandakumar & Poojesh J (Advocates) No. 6, Ramakrishna Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Acypj-0739-K] (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT

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 ld. CIT (A) has further erred in rejecting the interest amount of Rs.7,48,842/-, which is nothing but interest paid ... 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 as the ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved

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

ITA 770/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

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

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 ... 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 as the Id. CIT(A). Aggrieved

Sri Shameer Pasha, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Hassan

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

ITA 2289/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, CA

Section 69A

Delhi dated 30/09/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The assessee is an agriculturist, cultivating areca nuts, ginger, coffee etc and earned agricultural income of Rs. 1,38,52,500/-. The assessee also incurred expenditure for earning the said income. The assessee was under the impression that ... assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessment order treating the entire agricultural income as income u/s. 69A of the Act is not correct and further submitted a small paper book in which the assessee explained the reasons

ACIT-Central Circle -2(1), Nagpur vs. Shri Nandkumar Khattumal Harchandani, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 411/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 10(38)Section 68

Assessing Officer. 7.1 The assessee has filed e-return of income on 29.03.2016 declaring net taxable income at Rs. 76,94,280/- and agricultural income of Rs. 9,14,600/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s. 143(2) & 142(1) were issued to the assessee. In response

Joy Thomas, Kuravilangadu vs. Assessment Unit, Kottayam

In the result, appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 714/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Joy Thomas .......... Appellant Chitra Kozha Kuravilangadu, Kottayam 686633 [Pan: Acxpt6745J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer - Ward -1 .......... Respondent Shastri Road, Kottayam 686001 Appellant By: Shri Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

cultivating cardamom plantation on 142 acres of land. He further submitted that the mere fact that the 3 Joy Thomas appellant had not shown agricultural income cannot be a reason to disbelieve the explanation of the assessee in support of cash deposit placing reliance on the decision ... Rules before invoking section 40A(3) of the Act, and also keeping in mind that merely because the appellant had failed to show agricultural income cannot be a reason to reject the explanation that the cash deposits were made out of sale proceeds of cardamom. Accordingly we remit the matter

Desh Raj Jakhar, Gordhanpura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Neem Ka Thana

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

ITA 1261/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shaffi Mohd. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 5Section 69

with the Axis Bank a sum of Rs.43,70,000/- in the F.Y.2013-14 and the amount was from his past savings, father savings and agricultural income and the borrow some money from the friend and relatives. Whereas in the affidavits and reply submitted before your honour the assessee submitted that

Sbs Biotech Unit II, Sirmour vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 801CSection 80I

dated 06.04.2023 ii) Where the Assessing Officer had accepted entry in the statement of account filed by the assessee showing certain income as agricultural income, without making any enquiry, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner u/s 263(1) would be justified- Malabar Industrial

DCIT, Central Cir-2(4), Chennai vs. D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai

In the result, ITA Nos.3340 & 3341 /Chny/2018 stand allowed whereas ITA No

ITA 90/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3340/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3341/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri D.R. Balakrishna Raja Acit बनाम/ 9/16, Venkatesan Street, T.Nagar, Central Circle-3(3), Vs. Chennai-600 014. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Agwpd-2354-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.90/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit Shri D.R.Balakrishna Raja, बनाम/ Central Circle-2(4), 9/16, Venkatesan Street, T.Nagar Vs. Chennai-600 014. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Agwpd-2354-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-02-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-02-2025

For Appellant: Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 68

Lacs. However, Ld. CIT(A) reduced the opening balance of Rs.165 Lacs and confirmed the balance addition of Rs.8 Lacs. The assessee had offered agricultural income of Rs.5.26 Lacs. However, the same was rejected by Ld. AO on the ground that the assessee could not provide requisite details thereof ... from FYs 2010-11 to 2013-14 whereas it was reduced to 20.66 acres from FY 2014-15 onwards. The Ld. CIT(A) estimated agricultural income of Rs.2.40 Lacs for this year and held that the remaining income of Rs.2.86 Lacs was to be treated as non-agricultural income. Aggrieved

D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cir-3(3), Chennai

In the result, ITA Nos.3340 & 3341 /Chny/2018 stand allowed whereas ITA No

ITA 3341/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 68

D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cir-3(3), Chennai

In the result, ITA Nos.3340 & 3341 /Chny/2018 stand allowed whereas ITA No

ITA 3340/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 68

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sohna Technobuild Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 6381/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 10(1)Section 153A

substantive grievance raised herein seeks to revive the Assessing Officer’s action disallowing/adding the assessee’s claim of section 10(1) exemption of his agricultural income amounting to Rs.2.28 lakhs, in the course of scrutiny assessment framed on 27.12.2016 u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, a perusal ... Revenue at this stage seeks to highlight the fact that its last appeal ITA No.6382/Del/2018; in fact, raises identical issue of assessee’s agricultural income added in an “abated” assessment this time; and, therefore, the same needs to be revived since he had not proved all the relevant details

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

ITA 573/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69A

father, his uncle and cousins are all holders of agricultural lands and none of them has any other income earning activity other than agricultural income. 10. The AR further submitted that the assessee’s uncle ( younger brother of the father of the assessee) Sh. Raj Singh, has expired long back

Alka Kumari, Bengaluru vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Patna

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

ITA 612/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

from assessee in case LIMITED SCRUTINY 6. As to whether Learned ITO is entitled to first demand documentary evidence with regard to justification of agricultural income and after receiving in toto ignore all the evidences fictitiously? 7. As to whether Learned ITO i.e. empowered to deny the certificate issued ... competent authority i.e. by C O in support of agricultural income? 8. As to whether Learned ITO is empowered to convert agricultural income into taxable income if so under which provision of the act? 9. As to whether learned ITO is entitled to give definition of agricultural income

Shailendra Kumar Singh, Hardoi vs. ITO-3(2), Hardoi-1, Hardoi

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

ITA 795/LKW/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Feb 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrait(Ss) A. Nos. 795 To 798/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shailendra Kumar Singh Ito-3(2) V. Subhan Khera Sandila, Hardoi- Hardoi-1 241305. Uttar Pradesh-241305. Pan:Cvqps4275L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By: Shri Naeem Khan, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

above is valid, and supporting documentation has been included for your reference. e) An addition of Rs 7,54,892/was made with respect to agricultural income. Actual Facts: The appellant owns 18 bighas of agricultural land utilized for farming purposes. The aforementioned proceeds are directly associated with this land. Attached ... referenced above is valid, and supporting documentation has been included for your reference, e) An addition of Rs 7,54,892/was made with respect agricultural income. Actual Facts: The appellant owns 18 bighas, of agricultural land utilized for farming purposes. The aforementioned proceedings are directly associated with this land, Attached

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad, Aurangbad vs. Shri Pankaj Ratilal Mugdiya, Aurangabad

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

ITA 958/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR

Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

regards to the balance of jewellery of 107.48 gms, the assessee had offered an explanation that this jewellery was acquired out of the agricultural income generated by the Bigger HUF on the lands held by it. This explanation cannot be termed as "not plausible explanation" and, therefore

Papaiah Pulipati, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward 14 (1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee

ITA 1243/HYD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Karthik Manickam, Sr AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 64

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual having income from house property, income from business or profession, agricultural income etc., and filed his return of income on 31.07.2010. The said return was processed by the CPC u/sec.143

Papaiah Pulipati, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee

ITA 1200/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Karthik Manickam, Sr AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 64

Sri. T . Rajesh(HUF), Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Shimoga

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

ITA 2011/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing counsel for department

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

brief Facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 20.06.2017 declaring income of Rs.12,330/- and agriculture income of Rs.17,16,320/-. The case was selected under CASS under Limited scrutiny to verify "the Cash deposit during the year". In response to several statutory notices ... should not be brought to tax. In response, the assessee filed a letter on 19.12.2019 stating that the cash deposits were out of agricultural income and cash withdrawal from bank. However, the assessee did not give the details of crops sold, sale bills, details of persons/firms to whom the agricultural

Dhaval Himmat Bhandra, Mumbai vs. ITO - 34(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3886/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dhaval Himmat Bhandra, Ito-34(1)(1), 401, Beach Apartment, Balraj Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Sahani Road, Near Novotel Complex, Hotel, Juhu, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400049. Pan No. Bhjpb 7511 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Anand MundraFor Respondent: 09/01/2025

Section 68

raising following grounds: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case: Dhaval Himmat Bhandra Dhaval Himmat Bhandra Regarding addition of agriculture income of Rs. 290830/ Regarding addition of agriculture income of Rs. 290830/ Regarding addition of agriculture income of Rs. 290830/- as cash credit 1. The Learned ... adding the genuine 1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in adding the genuine 1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in adding the genuine agriculture income of Rs. 290830/ income of Rs. 290830/-. 2. The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had 2. The Learned CIT(A) failed

Shaiilendra Singh Rajpoot, Bareli vs. ITO, Raisen

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 462/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

present appeal are such that the assessee-individual furnished return of AY 2017-18 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,44,690/- and agricultural income of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The case of Page 1 of 14 Shri Shailendra Singh Rajpoot ITA No. 462/Ind/2024 - AY 2017-18 assessee ... addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of bogus creditors, and (iii) addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of unexplained agricultural income. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal whereupon the CIT(A) granted part relief in this manner, namely (i) out of addition