← 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

Late Shri Anand Alias Vishwanath Mamani, Through His Legal Heir Smt. Ratna Anand Mamani, Belagavi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1 Belagavi, Belagavi

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

ITA 352/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.352/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) Late Shri Anand Alias Vs Ito-Ward-1, Vishwanath Mamani Through Feroj Khimjibhai Cpx, . His Legal Heir Smt.Ratna Civil Hospital Road Anand Mamani, Belagavi-590001. 3138/3, Ramapur Site, Karnataka. Saundatti, Belagavi-591126, Karnataka. Pan,No.Avhpm6615P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Sri.Shivananad Halbhavi.Ar Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 04.02.2026 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale ,Jm: The Assesse Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Nfac/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assesee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Addition Of Unexplained Cash Deposits Under Section 68 Of The Act Made By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assesse Has Filed The Return Of Income For A.Y.2017-18 On 05.08.2017 Disclosing A Total Income Of Rs.11,93,580/- & The Case

Section 68

CASS to verify (i)Large cash deposits during the year compared to returned income(ii)Cash deposit during demonetization period and (iii) Large Agricultural income shown in the return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) based on the CASS reasons /information found that the assesse has made cash deposits aggregating ... period in F.Y.2016-17 and notice was issued u/sec143(2) and u/sec142(1) of the Act to furnish the details of sources of cash deposits, agricultural income and land holdings and the assessee has partially complied. The A.O. has issued notice U/sec 133(6) of the Act on the two banks

Rai Virender Singh, Kaithal, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kaithal, Haryana

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1033/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1033/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Rai Virender Singh Ito Ward-1 बनाम/ Mangol Patti, Ward No.-9, Village Bhagal Ambala Road, Kaithal Vs. Kaithal (Haryana) – 136034 Haryana - 136034 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Efbps-6495-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant Sh. Ashok Goyal (Ca) & Sh. Sifatpreet Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ars By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 11-03-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] On Best Judgment Basis U/S 144 Of The Act On 27-12-2019. Having Heard Rival Submissions, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Respondent: Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR (Virtual)
Section 144

assessee was treated as invalid return being filed beyond the time limit. The assessee attributed the deposits to earlier withdrawals, out of agricultural income and out of sale of trees and buffalo etc. However, these claims largely remained unsubstantiated / unverified. The Ld. AO computed that total credits in the bank ... accounts were Rs.99,87,033/-. After granting benefit of agricultural income for Rs.5 Lacs, the remaining amount of Rs.94,87,033/- was added to the income of the assessee. The Ld CIT(A) confirmed the assessment for want of any representation from the assessee against which the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Modasa, Income Tax Office Modasa vs. Bhagabhai Kacharabhai Patel, Bhiloda, Dist Arvalli, Gujarat

ITA 1492/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 148Section 64Section 69ASection 69C

assessee had filed his original return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 on 21.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs.4,59,750/- and agricultural income of Rs.4,73,857/-. On the basis of information received from the ACIT, Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai, the Assessing Officer noted that a search ... proceedings under section 148 of the Act. 4. In response, the assessee filed a return on 29.04.2021 declaring income of Rs.4,65,000/- and agricultural income of Rs.4,73,857/-. The Assessing Officer issued notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaires and called

Jithender Reddy Polu, Nalgonda vs. ITO, Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1493/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1493/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jithender Reddy Polu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nalgonda. Ward-1, Pan:Ahlpp6612R Suryapet. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Nagaraju, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 04/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 08/01/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 05/12/2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nagaraju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. AR
Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

acres of agricultural land hence thereby could not filed IT return for the AY 2017-18, All cash deposits are made out of agricultural income which is exempted 10(1) of the I.T Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 5,27,700/- deposited during ... Rs.20 lakhs to his son during the Financial Year 2015-16 and Financial Year 2016-17, which in turn was sourced out of his agricultural income, Page No.5 of APB; (iii) affidavit/confirmation of Smt. Polu Sujatha (wife of the assessee), wherein she had deposed about her agricultural land holding

V Gayathri, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Krishnagiri

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1871/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Jecintha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

Rs.16,09,500/- in SBN in above- captioned banks and that the source of the deposits is from her salary income, agricultural income and rental income from properties that she had received by way of partition deed executed in the year 2013 and her past savings. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer ... circumstances of their own case. The ld.AR submitted that the total income declared in the impugned year was Rs.5,57,650/- apart from the agricultural income. The ld.AR stated that the assessee is owning 10.33 Acres of agricultural land out of the registered partition deed dated 14.02.2013 and earning

Bankimchandra M. Desai, Valsad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 817/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Hiren M. Diwan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. D.R

have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The CIT(A) has not considered the agricultural income of the assessee to the extent of Rs. 9,66,000/- for which the assessee has given the details from 32 to 38 page of the paper

Sri Balagopalan Jewellerymart, South Avani Moola Street, Madurai vs. DCIT, Central Cir 3(3) Chennai, Investigation Building, Chennai

In the result, the captioned appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 3946/CHNY/2025[2020-2021]Status: FixedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

3964/Chny/2025 :: 2 :: 2. Brief Facts of the case: The assessee filed an original return of income on 31/08/2018 declaring income of Rs. 0/- (with agricultural income of Rs. 1,09,76,910/-), which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under ... assessment Scheme, 2019 on the issue of agricultural income. A notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 28/09/2019, followed by notices u/s. 142(1) on 05/12/2019, 20/07/2020, 07/09/2020, 06/10/2020, 08/10/2020, 10/11/2020, 23/11/2020, 24/12/2020, and 03/02/2021. The appellant responded partially to some notices but, according to the AO, did not furnish

Mr. Ashish Ramesh Ajmera, Dhule vs. ITO, Ward 1, Dhule

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

ITA 2506/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2506/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Ashish Ramesh Ajmera, V Income Tax Officer, Plot No.17, Ashish Saraswati S Ward-1, Dhule. Colony, Vidhyanagri, Dhule – 424005 Pan: Aaopa3375J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Jcit Date Of Hearing 09/12/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 02/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Panaji Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 Dated 29.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Act, Dated 14.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69A

facts and circumstance prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Act it be kindly held that the Agricultural income of Rs.5,45,377/- so reduced and added as unexplained income is incorrect and not in accordance with the prevailing facts. Thus, the addition so made ... Rs.10 lakhs which was deposited in cash in the bank account. Therefore, there is no merit in Ground No.1. Ld.DR submitted that regarding agricultural income, ld.AR has pleaded that there was agreement entered by Assessee with his Brother and Sisters to cultivate the land was not brought to the notice

Clarence Fonseca, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.1 of appeal is partly

ITA 5018/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

assessment years 2015- 16 and 2016-17. Before me Ld. AR for the assessee vehemently argued that assessee is an agriculturist and having substantial agricultural income in every year and having substantial cash available. The assessee also filed ITR Form- 4 showing cash-in-hand of Rs.9 ... submitted that Assessing Officer was not justify in rejecting the cash book, when in earlier two assessment years as the assessee has disclosed net agricultural income of Rs.2,87,660/- and Rs.6,57,42/- in assessment years 2016-17 and 2015-16 respectively. And that the Assessing Officer

Malika, Hardoi vs. ITO-3(2), Hardoi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 389/LKW/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Pranav Pandey, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Add CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 272A(1)(d)Section 56(2)(X)Section 69

Pandey, C.A. (hereinafter referred to as the AR) represented the assessee and it was submitted that the assessee was an Agriculturist, who was having agricultural income as well as income from Dairy Farming of Buffalos and Cows. She was minimally educated and not aware of income tax matters. In fact

Jitendra Nanasaheb Thorat, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Nashik

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

ITA 2307/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2307/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Jitendra Nanasaheb Thorat, V Income Tax Officer, A-7, Chaitrapalavi Apartment, S Ward-2(4), Nashik. Ashok Marg, Near Bank Of Maharashtra, Behind Fame Cinema, Nashik – 422006. Pan: Afypt8886Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi (Through Virtual) Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meema –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026 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(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2011-12 Dated 28.07.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act, Dated 27.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

deposits made in bank accounts of the appellant are to be treated as unexplained cash credits without appreciating that the said cash deposits represented agricultural income of the appellant and is therefore, apparently unjustified on facts of the case and in law. 7] The learned CIT(A) ought to have

Smt. Bhagchand Gogalu Paradeshi, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Jalgaon

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

ITA 2237/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2237/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 250

observe that the assessee is an individual and income of ₹3,35,010 declared in the return for A.Y. 2020-21 along with agricultural income of ₹38,12,745 furnished on 09.02.2021. Assessment has been completed u/.s.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act making addition of ₹38,62,845 denying ... genuineness of the agricultural income declared by the assessee and assessed the income at ₹41,97,755. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal and filed detailed statement of facts which have been captured in the impugned order from pages 2 to 16. However, since the assessee did not respond

Sanjay Vasantrao Patil, Satana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Malegaon

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

ITA 1894/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI R.K. PANDA (Vice President), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

time. During the assessment proceeding, the Ld. AO noted that the assessee had made a credit to capital account by way of HUF agricultural income of Rs.22,28,221/- and a debit of Rs.8,67,240/- on account of HUF agricultural expenses. The Ld. AO treated the net amount

Janardan Namdev Gawali, Ambarnath vs. ITO Ward2(2) Kalyan, Kalyan

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

ITA 8245/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawaljanardan Namdev Gawali Palegaon, Anandnagar, Ambarnath Thane, Kalyan - Dombivali Maharashtra - 421502 ............... Appellant Pan: Apgpg9048B V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), J-63/12 Addl., Murbad Rani Mansion ……………… Respondent Industrial Area Midc, 2Nd Floor Murbad Road Kalyan, Kalyan – Dombivali Maharashtra – 421301 Assessee By : Ms. Mamta Watwani Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Mamta WatwaniFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

said return, I had declared an income of 245,800/- and claimed that the income arising from the transfer of the aforementioned land was agricultural income and hence exempt under the provisions of the Act. 4. The Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) has erred both in law and on facts

Nivrutti Pandurang Bhor, Mumbai vs. ITO 27(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3589/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Mr. Nivrutti Pandurang Bhor, Income Tax Officer - 27(2)(1), B/502, Shiv Prerna Chs. Lts, Tower No.6, Andheri Link Road, Vs. Vashi Railway Station Complex, Asalpha Village, Vashi Navi Mumbai– 400 703 Mumbai – 400 072 Pan:Aagpb5212K (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 54

source of cash deposits. In response to the same, the assessee submitted that the source for the remaining cash deposit was on account of agricultural income, tuition income earned by the assessee’s wife and cash withdrawal from earlier period. However, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee could ... been pointed out by the lower authorities is wrong and the correct deposit was Rs.16,64,000/- only. With regard to the agricultural income, Ld. AR further contended that the assessee and his father were farmers and the assessee’s father was earning agricultural income for the past many years

Anant Keshav Rajegaonkar, Nashik vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Nashik

ITA 1252/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(3)Section 251(2)Section 68

basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of agricultural income of Rs. 99,643/-made u/s. 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant ... agricultural income for the incorrect reason that the appellant was not having any agricultural land, particularly when there was no dispute as regards the possession of agricultural land by the appellant and more particularly when the appellant has furnished copies of 7/12 extracts of the agricultural lands

Anant Keshav Rajegaonkar, Nashik vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Nashik

ITA 1251/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(3)Section 251(2)Section 68

basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of agricultural income of Rs. 99,643/-made u/s. 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant ... agricultural income for the incorrect reason that the appellant was not having any agricultural land, particularly when there was no dispute as regards the possession of agricultural land by the appellant and more particularly when the appellant has furnished copies of 7/12 extracts of the agricultural lands

Anant Keshav Rajegaonkar, Nashik vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Nashik

ITA 1250/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(3)Section 251(2)Section 68

basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of agricultural income of Rs. 99,643/-made u/s. 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant ... agricultural income for the incorrect reason that the appellant was not having any agricultural land, particularly when there was no dispute as regards the possession of agricultural land by the appellant and more particularly when the appellant has furnished copies of 7/12 extracts of the agricultural lands

Anant Keshav Rajegaonkar, Nashik vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Nashik

ITA 1249/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(3)Section 251(2)Section 68

basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of agricultural income of Rs. 99,643/-made u/s. 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant ... agricultural income for the incorrect reason that the appellant was not having any agricultural land, particularly when there was no dispute as regards the possession of agricultural land by the appellant and more particularly when the appellant has furnished copies of 7/12 extracts of the agricultural lands

Amolak Singh Bhatia, Bilaspur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-08, Delhi

ITA 3502/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 246

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘E’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR