“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

Amartbhai Mandanbhai Desai, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 180/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Prothviraj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54B

while the assessee had sold the land on 26.10.2016, whereas the assessee submitted computation of income for A.Ys. 2018-19 and 2019-20 showing agricultural income offered to tax, which are for succeeding assessment years and therefore, this data was not relevant. Further, the PCIT observed that the 7/12 abstract

ACIT., Central Circle 2(2), Hyderabad vs. Spectra India Eco Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 797/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member, Shri Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 153A

hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, deriving income from salary, income from other sources, and agricultural income. The assessee filed his original return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 on 25-07-2014, admitting total income ... basis of such evidences, no additions can be made. Further, the assessee and his family members are into the finance business out of their agricultural income, and the same has been offered to tax by his father and also by the assessee HUF. Therefore, once again making additions towards income

Akram, Roorkee vs. DCIT, Circle, Haridwar

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 6373/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun07 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Mayank Kumar, Addl. CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

Court held, “Accordingly we hold that the profit or gain resulting from sale of agricultural land is revenue derived from land i.e. it is agricultural income within the meaning of clause (1) under section 2 of the Act.” The ITAT Hyderabad bench in the case of T. Urmilla

Mahesh S N HUF, Vijayanagara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hosapete

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

ITA 2015/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri Madhukar Hegde, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing counsel for department

Section 80T

Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1067783474(1). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an HUF having income from house property and agricultural income. The assessee filed his return of income declaring an income of Rs.6,22,730/- and has claimed deduction u/s 80TTA of the Income ... short “The Act”). Apart from the house property income, the assessee has also earned agricultural income of R.s33.09 lakhs. The case of Mahesh S.N. HUF, Vijayanagara Dist. Page 2 of 3 the assessee was selected for scrutiny to examine the genuineness of agricultural income. Thereafter, no one appeared before

Naranbhai Samatbhai Bharwad Through Legal Heir Devrajbhai Naranbhai Bharwad, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 272/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasad Rao, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 234Section 271ASection 69A

This is an unacceptable proposition as despite lapse of such huge time is unable to adduce any evidence to establish His claim of earning agricultural income through sale to certain parties. Furthermore, he has not adduced any evidence on record to even prove that he owned any Etios car which ... rental income of Rs.6,88,000/-, profit from the partnership firm of Rs.1.50 crores, interest income on FDs amounting to Rs.1,42,000/- and agricultural income of Asst.Year 2017-18 - 5– Rs.10,00,004/- during the year. We have examined the detailed cash withdrawals pertaining

Dineshkumar Jashubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1956/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri M S Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68

Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee is earning agricultural income and is not aware about the intricacies of Income Tax. The assessee was totally relied upon his tax professional who was negligent in the matter

Siddhi Paragbhai Patel, Khambhat vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad

ITA 1264/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 69

that the assessee is an individual filed his Return of Income on 17-03-2016 declaring taxable income of Rs.6,26,050/- and also agricultural income of Rs.1,18,500/-. The I.T.A No. 1264/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 2 Siddhi Paragbhai Patel. vs. ITO return was processed

Mohd. Jawed, Bijnor vs. ITO Ward - 3(3), Bijnor

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

ITA 127/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roybhupendra Sharma Huf Vs. Cit(A) Nfac E-9, Sector-41, Noida Delhi – 110001 Uttar Pradesh- 201301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaghb3664P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA, &For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr

Section 143(3)Section 263

been claimed that the issue stands adjudicated on merits in the assessee's own case for AY 2017-18 accepting the genuineness of the agricultural income. On the basis of this claim, the assessee has requested that the addition made by the AO in the current relevant year ... answered by the ITAT, it is factually incorrect as well as completely misleading to claim herein now before this Bench that the genuineness of agricultural income has been accepted by the Bench. By making this claim, what the asessee is essentially proposing is that the ITAT has gone beyond

ACIT, Circle-1, Bareilly vs. Shri Sachit Kumar Agarwal, Bareilly

In the result, the impugned order of learned CIT(A) is sustained, and

ITA 396/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(2)Section 68

passed u/s 143(3) of the I. T. Act whereby the assessee's total income was assessed at Rs.2,75,41,208/-, plus agricultural income of Rs.5,93,000/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, an addition of Rs.1,22,00,000/- was made

Gurmukh Singh Sandhu, Vpo Manuke vs. Income Tax Officer (OSD)-2, Jagraon

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

ITA 496/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 496/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 बनाम Gurmukh Singh Sandhu, The Ito (Osd-2), Near B. D. Public School, Jagraon, Vpo Manuke, Tehsil Jagraon, Ludhiana 142034 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bqrps5927C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2025 आदेश/Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], For The Assessment Year 2011- 12. Ita No.496-Chd-2024 Gurmukh Signh Sandhu, Ludhiana 2 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 31,89,350/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposits In The Bank Accounts Of The Assessee. The Assessing Officer During The Assessment Proceedings Noted That The Assessee Had Deposited An Amount Of Rs. 31,89,350/- In His Bank Accounts (Rs. 25,75,000 With Bank Of Baroda & Rs. 6,14,350/- In Hdfc Bank). The Assessing Officer Treated The Aforesaid Amount As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee & Made The Impugned Addition.

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT

individual, agriculturist and his only other source of income was interest from saving bank account under the head ‘income from other sources’, besides agricultural income. It was also explained that the Assessee did not enjoy any income which was chargeable to tax as income was much below the taxable limit

Maheshbhai Maganbhai Patel, Virol vs. Income Tax Officer, Wars 1(3)(1), Petlad

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

ITA 726/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Anil Brahmakshatriya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

made by ld. AO as unexplained money as the appellant is an agriculturist and the cash was deposited from agricultural income. 3. The appellant craves to leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground/s of appeal on or before hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee is an individual ... Page No. 3 Maheshbhai Maganbhai Patel vs. ITO 5. The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee is an illiterate agriculturist having only agricultural income and no other income which was subjected to taxation. The assessee is not aware about the intricacies of the income tax law and has handed over

Pawan Kumar, Prop. Life Line Rice Mills, Begusarai vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Begusarai

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 15/PAT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Section 144Section 145Section 148Section 250

return of income. 10. For that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming the addition on account of agricultural income amounting to 125,700 assessed as undisclosed income only on the ground that evidence in support thereof were not furnished notwithstanding the fact that agricultural income

Pawan Kumar, Prop. Life Line Rice Mills, Begusarai vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Begusarai

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 14/PAT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Section 144Section 145Section 148Section 250

Smt . Santosh Devi, Hardoi vs. ITO-3(3), Bareilly

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

ITA 709/LKW/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow01 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2009-10 Smt Santosh Devi V. Income Tax Officer-3(3) Azad Nagar, Madhoganuj, Hardoi-241001. Hardoi-241001. Pan:Apdpd4175R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Saxena, Ca Respondent By: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Saxena, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 147Section 148

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as the “Act”) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.15,42,040/- (and net Agricultural income of Rs.15,000/- for rate purpose). As per the return of income, the assessee’s total income was stated to be Rs.62 ... addition to, net agricultural income stated to be Rs.15,000/-. In the aforesaid assessment order an addition of Rs.14,80,000/- was made on account of cash deposits made by the assessee in the bank account. The assessee filed appeal in the office of the Ld. CIT(A) against

Shahnaj, Near Bherudanji Well vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Income Tax Office

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 54F

Gazette." Thus, from the definition of capital asset, agriculture land is excluded. But what is ‘agriculture land’ is not defined in the Act. Only ‘agriculture income’ is defined in section 2(1A) of the Act which means "any rent or revenue derived from land in India which is used ... adventure in the nature of trade the next issue that arises for consideration is whether sale of agricultural land gives rise to ‘agricultural income’ or it ”is assessable to tax under the head ‘capital gains'. Admittedly, the expression “agricultural income" is not comprehensively defined in the Income Tax Act, though

Krishnamurthi Vanaja, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-1(4), Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2572/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2572/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Smt. Krishnamurthi Vanaja Ito बनाम #7, Co-Operative Colony, Non-Corporate Ward-1(4), / Vs. Uppilipalayam, Coimbatore-641 015. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahpv-1852-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154

land. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 3. The Ld. AR stated that the only grievance of the assessee was grant of TDS credit. The agricultural income as claimed exempt was accepted by CPC and therefore, this aspect could not have been gone into

Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office 20(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3767/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

total addition 2 Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal made by the ld. AO of Rs.50,19,100/- on account of disallowance of claim of agricultural income added u/s 68. 3. The brief facts are that assessee is an individual has declared total income of Rs.2,65,850/- in his return filed ... made by them is in relation with sales of goods by your assessee. It is submitted to your honour that such income is agricultural income and the same is clearly explained and evident from the reply filed by the said party. It is therefore prayed to your honour that income

Elumalai Sumathi, Bapatla vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ongole

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

ITA 1165/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1165/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Elumalai Sumathi Vs. Income Tax Officer Bapatla Ward-1 [Pan :Abipe4083C] Ongole (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri U.Mini Chandran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Pertaining To A.Y.2016-17 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.36,60,000 As Unexplained Investment U/S 69 Of The Act After Having Admitted The Additional Evidence Filed By The Assessee Under Rule 46A. 2. Any Other Ground Or Grounds That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: : Shri U.Mini Chandran, DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 69

assessee, further referring to opening capital as on 01.04.2010, submitted that the assessee derives income from her business, remuneration from partnership firm and also agricultural income. The assessee is in the business for many years and if we consider the nature of business carried out by the assessee ... argument of the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) that, she has known sources of income, out of her business income and other receipts including agricultural income and as on 01.04.2010, she has accumulated cash and cash equivalent of Rs.30,23,100/-. The assessee had also furnished the returns of income

Satbir Singh Punia, Rohtak vs. ITO Ward-3, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 138/DEL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.138/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2015-16) Satbir Singh Punia, H. No. 636/21, Main Azadgarh Road, Near Hafed Chowk, Rohtak, Haryana 124001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Awhpp-7447-F बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Aaykar Bhawan, Rohtak 124001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Naveen Kumar Goyal, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 27/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 27.12.2023, For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Shri Naveen Kumar Goyal, Appearing On Behalf Of Assessee Submits That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2015-16 Declaring Business Income Of Rs. 5,83,150/- U/S. 44Ad Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) & Agricultural Income Of Rs.37,15,850/-. The Assessee Has Agricultural Income From Cultivation Of His Own Land, As Well As The Land Taken On Batai/Theka (Lease). To Substantiate Agricultural Income, The Assessee Placed On Record

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Kumar Goyal, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 44A

declaring business income of Rs. 5,83,150/- u/s. 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and agricultural income of Rs.37,15,850/-. The assessee has agricultural income from cultivation of his own land, as well as the land taken on batai/theka (lease ... substantiate agricultural income, the assessee placed on record 2 fard/jamabandi of land indicating assessee’s ownership on agricultural land and also showing that the assessee was cultivating land owned by others. The ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that even in preceding assessment years

ITO Ward - 2, Karnal vs. Hardeep Singh, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and cross objections by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1152/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1152/िद"ी/2020(िन.व. 2011-12) Income Tax Officer, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Ward-2, Karnal, Haryana 132001 बनाम Vs. Hardeep Singh, S/O Jaswant Singh, Vill. Kutail, Po Darar, Karnal, Haryana 132001 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Exups 8061 N Co No. 150/Del/2023 (A.Y.2011-12) In Ita No. 1152/Del/2020 Hardeep Singh, S/O Jaswant Singh, Vill. Kutail, Po Darar, Karnal, Haryana 132001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Exups 8061 N बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Ward-2, Karnal, Haryana 132001 Assessee By : S/Shri Ved Jain, Aman Garg, Advocates & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Chartered Accountant Department By: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/12/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 27/12/2024

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain, Aman Garg, Advocates &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee on 23.03.2018. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed return of income on 05.05.2018 declaring income of Rs.1,34,955/- and agricultural income of Rs.2,70,468/-. The assessee filed objections against reopening of assessment on 23.08.2018. The contention of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer