“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

Navakaranataka Pattin Souharda Sahakari Niyamita, Dharward vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haveri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2394/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 69A

account during the period between November 11, 2016, and December 17, 2016. She explained the source of this amount as ₹ 3,75,000/- from agricultural income and an opening cash balance of ₹ 8,08,561.00/- only. 4. The AO accepted ₹ 2,00,000/- as satisfactorily explained but treated the remaining ... years income details which were made during the assessment proceedings. It is pertinent to mention here during the previous years the appellant was having agricultural income at Rs 2,72,480/ and income was at Rs 2,72,480/. So the appellant plea that he was having the opening cash

Ajay Thakur, Dehradun vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(1)1, Dehradun

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 60/DDN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Ajay Thakur, S/O- Sh. Surendra Singh, 31-Purbiya Ward-1(1)(1)1, Lines, Hospital Road, Dehradun Vikas Nagar, Dehradun Pan: Afkpt5059D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajiv Sahni, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2025 Order

Section 115BSection 147Section 2(14)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

consequential proceedings. This second substantive ground is accepted for statistical purposes. 9. Lastly comes the third issue of assessee’s claim of having derived agricultural income of Rs.1,83,000/- and disallowed on the ground of failure to produce the supportive evidence. The same factual position continued herein as well

Netrananda Nayak, Puri vs. ITO, Puri Ward, Puri

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

ITA 274/CTK/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2013-14 Netrananda Netrananda Nayak, Nayak, At: At: Vs. Income Tax Officer, Puri Income Tax Officer, Puri Khandiabandha, Khandiabandha, Po: Po: Word, Puri. Gopinathpur, Atharnala, Puri Gopinathpur, Atharnala, Puri Pan/Gir No. No.Ajspn 1567 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Niranjan Panda, Ca Niranjan Panda, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/01/20 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/01/20 025 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.6.2023 In Appeal No. Cit(A),Bhubaneswar 30.6.2023 In Appeal No. Cit(A),Bhubaneswar- 2/10186/2019-20 20 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Shri Niranjan Niranjan Panda, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. , Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan Panda, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR

Section 148

acquired from the assessee as agricultural land on which agricultural operation were being done, the compensation received by the assessee was liable to be agricultural income and consequently exempt. 7. In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that the nature of land clearly showed that the lands were not agricultural land ... plots numbers are same in respect of same lands, the compensation received by the assessee is liable to be treated as exempt as agricultural income only. 11. Ld Sr DR has raised an issue that the lands are within 2 kms from the Puri Muncipality. A perusal of the order

Suresh Kumar Saini, Jaipur vs. NFAC, Delhi

16. For the foregoing discussion and findings, this appeal deserves to be allowed

ITA 1256/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Thereby the Assessing Officer computed total income of the assessee as under:- In Rs. Addition u/s 69 as unexplained investment 47,77,300 Agriculture income assessee as income from other 5,48,550 sources Total income 53,25,850 Rounded off to 53,25,850 This order is passed under ... section 143(3)/147of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at an income of Rs.53,25,850/- and agriculture income of Rs. 1,75,000/-.Interest w/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the I.T. Act are charged. Tax is calculated. Credit for pre-paid taxes, if any, is given after

Prem Chand Gupta, Alwar vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Alwar

16. For the foregoing discussion and findings, this appeal deserves to be allowed

ITA 1251/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Mrs. Krishnawati Yadav, Raebareli vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Raibareli

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

ITA 786/LKW/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2019-20 Mrs Krishnawati Yadav V. The Income Tax Officer-1 Pure Pandey Chauraha Raebareli Saray Manik Deeh Raebareli Tan/Pan:Fblpk8342E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 01 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 147Section 69A

which, the assessee, vide her reply dated 16.11.2023, submitted that the amount of Rs.1,04,000/- credited in Bank Account No. 2054000001512 related to Agricultural Income received from sale of wheat at Government POS and the amount of Rs.25,40,120/- found deposited in Bank Account No.20540100006387 did not relate

Rekha Kishore Bari, Dhule vs. Assessing Officer-NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1667/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1667/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Rekha Kishore Bari, V The Assessing Officer- Datta Bari Bhavan, S Nfac. Opp.Rana Pratap Statute, Dhule – 424001. Pan: Abepb3597J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2020-21 Dated 19.07.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act, Dated 31/08/2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 3GSection 56(2)

case are as under : 4.1 The assessee had filed return of income for A.Y.2020-21 on 19/12/2020 declaring total income at Rs.42,87,800/- and agricultural income of Rs.20,000/-. The said return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Then, assessee filed Revised return on 21/05/2021 declaring Total

Arya Agri & Aqua Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, both appeals of the assesee are allowed

ITA 461/CTK/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 68

order of the Assessing Officer assessing the taxable income of the assessee based on erroneous facts and without applying his mind while considering the agricultural income as unexplained credit u/s 68 and accordingly made the addition of Rs.1,88,34,720 and raised the demand against the assessee. The assessee ... assessee prays before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to reject the addition made by the AO and allow the income as agricultural income and accordingly adjudicate the matter in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the addition of Rs.1,88,34,720 be deleted on the facts and circumstances

Arya Agri & Aqua Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, both appeals of the assesee are allowed

ITA 460/CTK/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 68

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Nagpur vs. Amit Khara, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 511/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263

passed order u/s 144 r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 25.03.2022 assessing income at Rs.2,44,67,210/- disallowing the claim of agricultural income of Rs 2,24,94,953/-. Present appeal is against the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B ... present case, the Assessing Officer was satisfied consequent to making an enquiry and examining the evidences produced by the appellant for the claim of agricultural income. The learned PCIT in the revision order has not doubted any evidences produced by the appellant. However, he made out case of inadequate enquiry

Bangar Raju Penmetsa, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 896/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 896/Hyd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Bangar Raju Penmetsa, Acit, Hyderabad. Vs. Central Circle-1(4), [Pan : Acapp1228P] Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri U. Mini Chandran, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 69A

also be taken into considera"on for explana"on of the sources towards the amounts added. Further, to substan"ate assessee’s claim of agricultural income, learned AR also placed before us copies of Title Deeds and Pa"adar Passbooks which evidences the land holdings of assessee’s father

Hamirbhai Rahabhai Shiyaliya, Rajkot vs. ITO Ward-2(2)(5), Rajkot

ITA 110/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.110/Rjt/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rashmin Vekariya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 69A

Hamirbhai Shiyalia Vs. ITO Ward-2(2)(5), Rajkot (A.Y. 2017-18) ITA-110/RJT/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Yashwant Singh, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 7/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

purpose of narration of facts. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee in his return of income had shown agricultural income of Rs. 45 lakh. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the requisite details to prove that the assessee has Page 2 of 6 I.T.A ... /Pat/2024 & ITA Nos. 412-416/Pat/2024 Yashwant Singh genuinely shown the aforesaid agricultural income. The assessee furnished certain bills and vouchers and also an affidavit of one Shri Ram Prakash Rai, who confirmed that he had purchased the agricultural produce from the assessee. The Assessing Officer examined the said purchaser

Yashwant Singh, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 6/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

Yashwant Singh, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 5/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

Yashwant Singh, Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 416/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

purpose of narration of facts. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee in his return of income had shown agricultural income of Rs. 45 lakh. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the requisite details to prove that the assessee has genuinely shown the aforesaid agricultural ... assessee. The Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee had failed to establish that the aforesaid income shown by the assessee was his agricultural income. He, therefore, made the addition of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 45 lakh as income from undisclosed sources. He also reopened the assessment for other assessment