← 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

Rajendra Agrawal, Biroli Bazar vs. ITO Ward 3(1) Purnea, Purnia

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 422/PAT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.422/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rajendra Agrawal.……………….....…..…………………....Appellant New Sipahi Tola, Maranga Road, Bihar – 85301. [Pan: Aqhpa2439E] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Purnia....….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 18 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Engaged In Farming Activities. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(2)(c)Section 250

assessment year 2011-12. The assessee filed his return electronically declaring Rs.44,590/- as income from other sources and Rs.7,94,275/- as agricultural income. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued thereon. During the assessment proceedings ... proceeds from agricultural produce. Due to lack of supporting documents and non-availability of comprehensive details, the Assessing Officer disallowed 25% of the claimed agricultural income of Rs.7,94,275/- i.e. Rs.1,98,569/- and added it back to the total income of the assessee by assessing total income

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Dharmesh Kalidas Patel, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 289/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakker, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

details of the creditors viz. names, address, PAN and ITR details. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.20,42,336/- being the agricultural income, considering it as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, and demanded taxes thereon. 4. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), major cash creditors

Dharmesh Kalidas Patel, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 276/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarassessment Year : 2017-18 Dharmesh Kalidas Patel, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs 8/A, Sankalp Apartment, Income-Tax, Opp. Shraddha Petrol Pump, Central Circle 1(1), Judges Bungalow Road, Ahmedabad Bodakdev, Ahmedabad-380054 [Pan: Aaypp 0258 P] Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Dy. Commissioner Of Dharmesh Kalidas Patel, Vs Income-Tax, 8/A, Sankalp Apartment, Central Circle 1(1), Opp. Shraddha Petrol Pump, Ahmedabad Judges Bungalow Road, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad- 380054 [Pan: Aaypp 0258 P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Thakker, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar:

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakker, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

details of the creditors viz. names, address, PAN and ITR details. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.20,42,336/- being the agricultural income, considering it as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, and demanded taxes thereon. 4. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), major cash creditors

Rahul Bajpai, Idgah Chowk vs. DCIT Circle 1(1), Shri Ram Plaza

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 345/RPR/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.345/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rahul Bajpai Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Aexpb4410L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54BSection 54DSection 56(2)(vii)

treated the sale of land as non- agricultural. Ignoring the facts that land is cultivated one subject to land revenue and agricultural income shown by the appellant in the ITR was accepted by the A.O. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT (Appeal) erred ... that were transferred by him during the year under consideration. It was further observed by the A.O that the assessee had neither disclosed any agriculture income in his return of income nor had filed any proof or evidence supporting his claim that agricultural activities were carried on the aforesaid lands

Munir Ahmed Shaikh, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Bharuch

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

ITA 685/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 685/Srt/2024 (Ay 2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Munir Ahmed Shaikh Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Maru Street Hansot, Bharuch, 1St Floor Station Road, बनाम Bharuch-393 030 Near Panchwati Chowk, Vs [Pan : Cfwps 1599 M] Bharuch-392 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

year, 2018-19, the assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 62,970/- . In the computation of income, assessee has shown net agricultural income at Rs.36,28,010/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny on the issue of agricultural income. During assessment, assessee explained that only ... source of income of assessee is agricultural income and to substantiate such agricultural income, he furnished bills of sugarcane, bank statement and record of landholding and such evidences were taken on record by Assessing Officer. However, Assessing Office rejected the contention of assessee and allowed agricultural income of Rs.11

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Nagpur vs. Shri Madhusudan M. Mude, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 137/NAG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 132(4)

holding of agricultural land without producing the supporting documents like 7/12 extracts, crops raised, yield per year etc. does not prove that assessee have agricultural income of Rs. 3,00,000/- 8. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.C(T(A) erred

Madhusudan Marotrao Mude, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 132/NAG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 132(4)

holding of agricultural land without producing the supporting documents like 7/12 extracts, crops raised, yield per year etc. does not prove that assessee have agricultural income of Rs. 3,00,000/- 8. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.C(T(A) erred

Sebastian Asha Cheerakuzhy Nursery, Nilambur vs. I.T.O, Ward-2, Tirur

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

ITA 580/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sebastian Asha .......... Appellant Cheerakuzhy Nursery R.S. Road, Nilambur 679513 [Pan: Azwpa2731K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward -2, Tirur Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.01.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 29.04.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed Her Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 On 30.03.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 69,630/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward -2

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

making additions of Rs. 31,500/- under the head “income from other sources” and Rs. 7,98,300/- on account of disbelieved agricultural income. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte for non prosecution placing

R. Anbuvel Rajan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Range 1, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 2166/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

deposit or specified whom the loan or deposit or specified sum is taken or accepted, are sum is taken or accepted, are both having agricultural income and neither of them has any income both having agricultural income and neither of them has any income both having agricultural income and neither ... State Governments; the second proviso a Central or State Governments; the second proviso a Central or State Governments; the second proviso exempts persons having agricultural income, whose income is not exempts persons having agricultural income, whose income is not exempts persons having agricultural income, whose income is not chargeable

R. Anbuvel Rajan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Rangel, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 2165/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

deposit or specified whom the loan or deposit or specified sum is taken or accepted, are sum is taken or accepted, are both having agricultural income and neither of them has any income both having agricultural income and neither of them has any income both having agricultural income and neither ... State Governments; the second proviso a Central or State Governments; the second proviso a Central or State Governments; the second proviso exempts persons having agricultural income, whose income is not exempts persons having agricultural income, whose income is not exempts persons having agricultural income, whose income is not chargeable

Mohd Zubair Asharafi, Nagpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 438/NAG/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

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

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

purchased by Sh. Mohd. Zubair Asharafi for Rs.44,71,440/- and he was benamidar of this land. He has further submitted that the agricultural income of Rs.2,18,945/- shown by him on the agricultural land is also of Sh. Mohd. Zubair Asharafi. During verification conducted by ITO Ward

Vanita Diliprao Dehankar, Amravati vs. ITO Ward -3, Amravati

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 68

agriculturist, filed her return of income for the impugned assessment year 2017-2018 on 23.05.2021 declaring total income at Rs.70,241/- and net agricultural income of Rs.2,50,000/- and deposit of Rs.2,46,500/- with Abhinandan Bank. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices u/sec.143(2) r.w.s.147

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 936/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

alleged unexplained investment in purchase of agriculture land by not accepting the explanation of assessee that the source of same is out of agriculture income of Rs. 3,12,998/- earned during the year on the ground that assessee has not disclosed the enhanced agriculture income in the return filed ... disclosed the same in assessment proceedings u/s 153A which is not admissible and from past savings of Rs. 3,00,000/- out of agriculture income. 2. The appellant craves to alter, amend & modify any ground of appeal. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.” 5. Succinctly, the facts

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 935/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

alleged unexplained investment in purchase of agriculture land by not accepting the explanation of assessee that the source of same is out of agriculture income of Rs. 3,12,998/- earned during the year on the ground that assessee has not disclosed the enhanced agriculture income in the return filed ... disclosed the same in assessment proceedings u/s 153A which is not admissible and from past savings of Rs. 3,00,000/- out of agriculture income. 2. The appellant craves to alter, amend & modify any ground of appeal. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.” 5. Succinctly, the facts

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 934/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

alleged unexplained investment in purchase of agriculture land by not accepting the explanation of assessee that the source of same is out of agriculture income of Rs. 3,12,998/- earned during the year on the ground that assessee has not disclosed the enhanced agriculture income in the return filed ... disclosed the same in assessment proceedings u/s 153A which is not admissible and from past savings of Rs. 3,00,000/- out of agriculture income. 2. The appellant craves to alter, amend & modify any ground of appeal. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.” 5. Succinctly, the facts

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 933/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

alleged unexplained investment in purchase of agriculture land by not accepting the explanation of assessee that the source of same is out of agriculture income of Rs. 3,12,998/- earned during the year on the ground that assessee has not disclosed the enhanced agriculture income in the return filed ... disclosed the same in assessment proceedings u/s 153A which is not admissible and from past savings of Rs. 3,00,000/- out of agriculture income. 2. The appellant craves to alter, amend & modify any ground of appeal. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.” 5. Succinctly, the facts

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 932/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

alleged unexplained investment in purchase of agriculture land by not accepting the explanation of assessee that the source of same is out of agriculture income of Rs. 3,12,998/- earned during the year on the ground that assessee has not disclosed the enhanced agriculture income in the return filed ... disclosed the same in assessment proceedings u/s 153A which is not admissible and from past savings of Rs. 3,00,000/- out of agriculture income. 2. The appellant craves to alter, amend & modify any ground of appeal. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.” 5. Succinctly, the facts

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 931/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

alleged unexplained investment in purchase of agriculture land by not accepting the explanation of assessee that the source of same is out of agriculture income of Rs. 3,12,998/- earned during the year on the ground that assessee has not disclosed the enhanced agriculture income in the return filed ... disclosed the same in assessment proceedings u/s 153A which is not admissible and from past savings of Rs. 3,00,000/- out of agriculture income. 2. The appellant craves to alter, amend & modify any ground of appeal. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.” 5. Succinctly, the facts

Bal Reddy Kandunuri, Adilabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1203/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 153ASection 69A

from various bank accounts for the past two months, advances from various customers received in respect of his business venture viz., Kruthika County and agricultural income etc. Subsequently, notice U/s 153A of the Act dated 3/12/2018 was issued and in response to the notice, the assessee filed the return

Bal Reddy Kandunuri, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1202/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 153ASection 69A

from various bank accounts for the past two months, advances from various customers received in respect of his business venture viz., Kruthika County and agricultural income etc. Subsequently, notice U/s 153A of the Act dated 3/12/2018 was issued and in response to the notice, the assessee filed the return