← 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

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 4/PAT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

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

Sri.K.N. Sreekumar, Kottayam vs. The A CIT, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 114/COCH/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leenalal, Sr.AR

afresh. 6. After perusing the material available on record, we observe that two major issues are involved in these cases, i.e., (i) issue of agricultural income, for which the CIT(A) has held that the assessee failed to file any evidence to substantiate its claim of agricultural income

Sri. K.N.Sreekumar, Kottayam vs. The ACIT, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 113/COCH/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leenalal, Sr.AR

afresh. 6. After perusing the material available on record, we observe that two major issues are involved in these cases, i.e., (i) issue of agricultural income, for which the CIT(A) has held that the assessee failed to file any evidence to substantiate its claim of agricultural income

Sri.K.N.Sreekumar, Kottayam vs. The ACIT, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 112/COCH/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leenalal, Sr.AR

afresh. 6. After perusing the material available on record, we observe that two major issues are involved in these cases, i.e., (i) issue of agricultural income, for which the CIT(A) has held that the assessee failed to file any evidence to substantiate its claim of agricultural income

Sri.K.N.Sreekumar, Kottayam vs. The ACIT, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 110/COCH/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leenalal, Sr.AR

afresh. 6. After perusing the material available on record, we observe that two major issues are involved in these cases, i.e., (i) issue of agricultural income, for which the CIT(A) has held that the assessee failed to file any evidence to substantiate its claim of agricultural income

Sri.K.N.Sreekumar, Kottayam vs. The ACIT, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 109/COCH/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leenalal, Sr.AR

afresh. 6. After perusing the material available on record, we observe that two major issues are involved in these cases, i.e., (i) issue of agricultural income, for which the CIT(A) has held that the assessee failed to file any evidence to substantiate its claim of agricultural income

Sri.K.N.Sreekumar, Kottayam vs. The ACIT, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 108/COCH/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leenalal, Sr.AR

afresh. 6. After perusing the material available on record, we observe that two major issues are involved in these cases, i.e., (i) issue of agricultural income, for which the CIT(A) has held that the assessee failed to file any evidence to substantiate its claim of agricultural income

Mohammad Mushtaq, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Circle, Panchkula

ITA 694/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT-Sr.DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 246ASection 253

That assessee had filed return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 06.11.2017 declaring an income of Rs.15,52,590/- and agriculture income of Rs.46,68,628/-. 2.2 That the case of the assessee was selected under complete scrutiny through CASS. 2.3 That notice under Section ... growing of cut flowers. The assessee had derived its income from Trading and sale of cut flowers which is in the nature of Agricultural Income. ITA 694/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 3 That the Learned Assessing officer had arbitrarily and without any basis made the addition of Rs.46

Mustak Rajjak Kapade, Ratnagiri vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ratnagiri

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 889/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.889/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mustak Rajjak Kapade, V The Income Tax Officer, C/O.Bipin Shaha, 1756, Jutica, S Ward-1,Ratnagiri. Teli Ali, Ratnagiri – 415612. Pan: Bpzpk7653G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anup Bipin Shaha – Ar Shri Akhilesh Srivastava –Addl.Cit(Dr) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 06/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2025 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] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2012-13; Dated 27.02.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Failed To Appreciate The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case By Confirming The Addition Of Rs.4,00,000/- Pertaining To Cash Deposits In The Month Of October, 2011 & Such Addition Made By Ld.Ao Is Merely On Basis Of Guess Work & Surmise. The Ld.Cit(A) & The Ld.Ao Erred In Appreciating The Explanation Furnished By The Assessee In Respect Of Such Cash Deposit & Made An Addition Which Is Against The Provisions & Spirit Of The Act. The Said Addition Be Deleted & The Assessee Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Assessee filed Return of Income only after issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. In the return of income, assessee declared agricultural income of Rs.5,36,820/- and Income of Rs.1,00,670/-. The Assessing Officer had received information regarding deposits of the Assessee in the bank ... maintained with Bank of India during the FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13 was Rs.9,70,000/-. The appellant has already shown agricultural income of Rs.5,36,820/- for the year under consideration and has claimed that the cash deposit of Rs.4,00,000/- made

Raj Goat Farms P. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3032/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.Easwar, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

dated 13.12.2018 u/s.143(3) of the Act by assessing total income at Rs.36,41,156/-. The AO in the assessment completed, disbelieved part of agricultural income claimed in the return of income. The AO added the same as ‘income from other sources’. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee ... assessment has been completed u/s.143(3) of the Act, the AO has not taken into consideration the details submitted to prove the source of agricultural income. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee company has got substantial agricultural holding and has also furnished details of the persons to whom the agricultural

Nikunjkumar Ghanshyambhai Desai, Desai Street vs. Income Tax Officer, Second Floor

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

ITA 176/SRT/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.176/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Nikunjkumar Ghanshyambhai Desai, Vs. The Ito, Panetha Desai Street Paneth, Zaghadia, Ward – 1(4), Bharuch – 393120, Gujarat Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amgpd2814B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Piyush Panchal, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2025

Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “(i) In fact and in law the assessment of 25% of agricultural income of Rs.7,65,000 credited into BOB A/c No 329 as Income from other source is not justifiable. (ii) In fact and in law 25% value ... issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response to the notice, the assessee had filed his return of income on 13.10.2018, showing agricultural income of Rs.6,70,108/-. The Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) observed that assessee had deposited cash of Rs.12,23,000/- in the bank account No.18290100000329

Tej Singh Sinsinwar, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1100/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jan 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under :- “ The appellant has not been able to give any documentary evidence regarding sources of agricultural income or other documentary evidence pertaining to relevant financial year which can establish the source of impugned time deposits. Therefore, the nature and source ... land produce(PBP: 8 – 10). In the said response, the appellant stated that the source of time deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- is the agriculture income generated from such farm land. Here, it is pertinent to note thatneither the Ld. AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has denied ownership

A T and S India Private Limited, Nanjangud, Mysore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1220/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit, Kolkata-2 A T & S India Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 12A, Industrial Area Nanjangud Chowringhee Square, Vs. H.O, Mysore-571301, Karnataka Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2930J Assessee By : Shri Anup Sinha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

Assessing Officer. Thus, there was no material to support the claim of the appellant that the said amount represented compensation for loss of agricultural income. He accepted the entry in the statement of the account filed by the appellant in the absence of any supporting material and without making ... High Court. It was not shown at any stage of the proceedings that the amount in question was fixed or quantified as loss of agricultural income and, admittedly, it is not so found by the Tribunal. The further question whether it will be agricultural income within the meaning of section

M N Manjula, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -3, Davangere

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2062/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Prathiba, AdvocateFor 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

Kenneth Blah, Shillong vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.135/Gty/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Roy, JCIT
Section 10(26)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 25Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

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: [Provided also that the provisions of this section shall have effect ... taken or accepted and the person by whom the loan or deposit or specified sum is taken or accepted or both having agricultural income and neither of them has income chargeable to tax under this Act. In the instant case, income of the assessee is also not chargeable

Lokesh Kumar Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-45(5), Delhi

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1575/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2Section 92C

Rs.40,03,75,727/- after claiming exemption under section 2(1A) r.w.s. 10(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of agricultural income amounting to Rs.124,59,41,832/-. According to the assessee- company, the main activity of the company is to procure various varieties of seeds from ... order appearing on page no.54 to 59 of the assessment order and assessed the income amounting to Rs.1,24,59,41,832/- claimed as agricultural income and exempt u/s 10(1) of the Act as income from business activities. The important findings of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order

Rekhaben Jaysukhlal Ghodasara, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward 2(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 499/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 68

Rajkot, in making addition of Rs. 6,60,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act, by estimating agricultural expenses @30% of total agricultural income and treating the same as income from undisclosed sources. 2) The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime ... made addition with following observation: “On verification of the details i.e., return of income it is seen that the assessee has eared agriculture income to the tune of Rs. 22,00,000/-. However, there is no agriculture expense debited in books of accounts. Further no details in respect of agriculture

Krishnam Raju Farms, Bhimavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhimavaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 400/VIZ/2024[201-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.400/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2019-20) Krishnam Raju Farms V. Asst. Director Of Income Tax D.No. 27-14-13 Central Processing Centre Padmalaya Theatre Road Bangalore Bheemavaram – 534202 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aapfk9183P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 10(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

exempt income. Assessee also made submissions regarding the assessments made during the earlier assessment years and subsequent assessment years considering the same as agricultural income. Ld.CIT(A) considering all the submissions citing the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act assessee has made an incorrect claim which ... agricultural farm has mentioned income arising from business operations. However, from the computation statement attached in the paper book, assessee has claimed it as agricultural income and it is exempt from tax under section 10(1) of the Act. It is also an undisputed fact that the earlier assessment years

Omprakash, Dholpur vs. ITO Ward 4 Bharatpur, Bharatpur

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1255/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rahual Pandya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary (JCIT-DR)
Section 147Section 148oSection 2(14)Section 271(1)(C)Section 45

land - It was observed that assessee had furnished Adangal Extract Receipts issued by Tahsildar, Electricity Board Receipts, Land Test Report, Land Revenue Tax Receipt, Agricultural Income Receipts and Ploughing Expense Receipts - Further, in Patta, land had been classified as 'Punjal' wet land - Whether, in view of facts, since assessee

Baldev Singh, Fatehabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Wards 1, Fatehbad

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 813/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 813/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Baldev Singh, Vs. The Ito, बनाम M/S Baldev Singh Jarnail Ward-1, Singh, Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad Dharsul Kalan, Tehsil Tohana, Fatehabad

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Shri Ashok Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 249Section 250Section 253Section 3Section 5

According to the Assessee, he is an agriculturist and the deposits were 813 -Chd-2024- Baldev Singh, Fatehabad 7 made out of agriculture income. However, we are of the view that charging of tax will be dependent on the outcome of Ground No. 2, therefore, at this stage, this ground ... agricultural activity conducted by the Assessee of his land or land owned by any other person. According to him, the Assessee has earned agricultural income and has some past savings out of which these deposits have been made. 15. The ld. DR, on the other hand submitted that both