“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Ramakrishna Nukala, Visakhapatnam

ITA 412/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri S. Balakrishnan

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 69ASection 80Section 80I

return of income for the Assessment Year 2017 -18 on 30-10-2017 declaring an income of Rs. 3,03,36,730/- and agricultural income of Rs. 30,93,704/-. The assessee has returned the above income after claiming the deduction u/s 80IB(11A) for Visakhapatnam undertaking. The assessee ... Addition of cash deposits during the demonetization period u/s 69A of Rs. 1,68,54,000/-. (3) Part of the agricultural income is considered as income u/s 69A to the tune of Rs. 20,93,704/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer on the above additions and denial

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Shri Ramakrishna Nukala, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 252/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri S. Balakrishnan

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 69ASection 80Section 80I

Balineni Kishorebabu, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 33/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 33/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Balineni Kishore Vs. Income Tax Officer Babu, Vijayawada Ward 14(2) Pan:Asqpb9632D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Naveen Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18/11/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-/Addl/ Jcit(I)-10 Mumbai, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In Sustaining The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Page 1 Of 5

For Appellant: Advocate A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: : Shri B Naveen Kumar, DR

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

balance of Rs. 5,38,000/-, he stated that these amounts were received from B. Chinamma and R. Krishna Murthy out of their agricultural income and same were deposited by clients for the payment of self-assessment tax. Since, the assessee did not submit any supporting evidence for these receipts

Sankarlal Naik Karamsi, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1257/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumara N D Shri Manjunatha, G. & आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1257/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Sankarlal Naik Vs. Income Tax Officer Karamsi, Hyderabad Ward 8(1) Pan:Ancpk0584A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03/10/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Against The Law, Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of Case.

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

partly transactions of the assessee from the real estate business, in which assessee is only entitled for commission and partly from agricultural income etc., therefore, the learned Commissioner erred in confirming the order of the AO, wherein, income is determined at Rs.3

Balasaheb Arjun Malawade, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Solapur

In the result, the appeal(s) of the assessee for both the AYs 2018-19

ITA 1612/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 10(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69ASection 69C

Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in application of provisions of Section 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961 on agriculture income of Rs.1,14,63,399 declared in Return of Income. 3. The appellant craves leave to add/delete/modify amend all or nay of the grounds ... Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in application of provisions of Section 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961 on agriculture income of Rs.68,37,057 declared in Return of Income. 4. The appellant craves leave to add/delete/modify amend all or any of the grounds

Balasaheb Arjun Malawade, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Solapur

In the result, the appeal(s) of the assessee for both the AYs 2018-19

ITA 1608/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 10(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69ASection 69C

Balasaheb Arjun Malawade, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Solapur

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

ITA 1607/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Chandan KatariyaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 271A

penalty of Rs.8,85,574/- levied by the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) u/s 271AAC(1)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) on agricultural income of Rs.1,14,63,399/- pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2018-19. 2. Perusal of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT (A) reveals

M/S. Rosewood Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 582/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C. Roy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

although it was dated 30th December, 2016. Relying on decisions in CIT v. BJN Hotels Ltd. (2017) 79 taxmann.com 336 (Kar); K. Joseph v. Agricultural Income Tax Officer (1991) 190 ITR 464 (Ker) and Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Officer v. Kappurmalai Estate 234 ITR 187 (Ker), the ITAT came

M/S. Rosewood Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 581/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C. Roy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Benglauru vs. Shri Kempareddy Govindraju, Domlur, Bengaluru

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1291/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

Income from House property ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024 ITA Nos.1290 to 1292/Bang/2024 Page 37 of 155 and Income from Other Sources. He also admitted agricultural income of Rs.91,000/-. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act returning a Nil demand. 6. A search under

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Queens Road, Bengaluru vs. Shri Kempareddy Govindraju, Domlur, Bengaluru

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to

ITA 1290/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

Shri. Kempareddy Govindraj, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to

ITA 1024/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

Shri. Kempareddy Govindraj, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1022/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

declaring total income of Rs.6,03,150/- being Income from Salary, Income from House property and Income from Other Sources. He also admitted agricultural income of Rs.91,000/-. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act returning a Nil demand. 6. A search under section

Shri. Kempareddy Govindraj, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to

ITA 1021/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

Mr. D K Shivakumar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 205/BANG/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Chandrasekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Y. V. Raviraj, Sr. Standing Counsel

Section 153ASection 153C

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 21.04.2008 declaring income of Rs.1,19,06,720/- and agricultural income of Rs.2,50,650/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 10.11.2009. A search was carried

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore vs. Mr. D K Shivakumar, Bangalore

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

ITA 48/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

Section 153ASection 153C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore vs. Mr. D K Shivakumar, Bangalore

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

ITA 47/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

Section 153ASection 153C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore vs. Mr. D K Shivakumar, Bangalore

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

ITA 46/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

Section 153ASection 153C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore vs. Mr. D K Shivakumar, Bangalore

ITA 45/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Respondent: Shri. Chandrasekhar, AR

Section 153ASection 153C

Dolphin Promoters and Builders, Raipur vs. Addl.CIT, Range-1, Raipur

ITA 58/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 58/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Vimal KumarFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 68Section 801B(10)

construction. The return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12 was filed electronically on 30.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.79,15,730/-. Net agricultural income was shown as Nil but still the aggregate income was shown as Rs.82,60,200/-. Subsequently the assessee revised the return, twice, on 23/3/2012 ... latest return of income, the assessee declared total income of Rs.79,15,730/- . Net agricultural income was shown as Nil and the aggregate income was shown as Rs.79,15,730/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and the first notice u/s 143(2) dated 1/08/2012 was issued