“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

Anant Ramrao Chavan, Amravati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Amravati

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

ITA 476/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 250

prayed at the time of hearing.” 3. The assessee is a businessman running business of ginning & pressing factory of cotton. He also has an agricultural income from ancestral property. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold an ancestral rural agricultural land admeasuring 0.85R of GAT No.129 Mauje Ganeshpur ... During the assessment proceeding, the assessee filed his return of income on 24/12/2019 showing net business loss of ` 13,275, and agricultural income of ` 17,82,492, for the year 2013-14. But the Assessing Officer considered the ancestral agricultural land as a capital asset since the same failed

Abhay Devichand Chaudhary, Akola, Maharashtra vs. ITO Ward - 1, Akola, Maharashtra

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

ITA 464/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

learned AO, erred in making addition at Rs.12,56,000/- u/s 69A of I.T. Act 1961 by not considering the availability of savings, agricultural income and business receipts of assessee. 6. The learned A.O. and CIT(A) ought to have held that

Girdharilal Motilal Agrawal, Buldana vs. ITO Ward-1, Khamgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 332/NAG/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

explanation that, the credit/cash entries in the bank account pertains to the past savings, business receipts, withdrawal made in the bank account and agriculture income. 5. The Assessee craves to add, alter, vary omit, amend or delete one or more of the above grounds of appeal before ... declaring total income at ` 1,91,400. The assessee offered explanation that the source of these cash deposits comprised contract receipts for the year, agricultural income, opening cash balances, withdrawals from the bank account and accumulated past savings. The Assessing Officer had considered and accepted the explanation of the assessee

Josh Education Foundation, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur, Rajasthan

ITA 726/JPR/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: MS Alka Gautam , CIT a

Section 115BSection 153ASection 153DSection 68

circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO in not granting exemption of agricultural income to the extent of Rs. 1,21,500 out of the total agricultural income of Rs. 1,85,500 declared by the Assessee ... circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO in not granting exemption of agricultural income to the extent of Rs. 1,26,200 out of the total agricultural income of Rs. 1,90,500 declared by the Assessee

Chatru, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 727/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: MS Alka Gautam , CIT a

Section 115BSection 153ASection 153DSection 68

Chatru, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 725/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 721 to 727/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2021-2022 Shri Chatru, Nimod, Malarana Dunger, Sawai Madhpur. cuke Vs. The DCIT, Central Circle, Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BUVPC 1977 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Tarun Mittal, CA, Shri Harshit Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : MS Alka Gautam

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: MS Alka Gautam , CIT a

Section 115BSection 153ASection 153DSection 68

Chatru, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 724/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: MS Alka Gautam , CIT a

Section 115BSection 153ASection 153DSection 68

Chatru, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 723/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: MS Alka Gautam , CIT a

Section 115BSection 153ASection 153DSection 68

Chatru, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 722/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: MS Alka Gautam , CIT a

Section 115BSection 153ASection 153DSection 68

Chatru, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 721/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: MS Alka Gautam , CIT a

Section 115BSection 153ASection 153DSection 68

Siddharth Singh, Bareilly vs. ITO-1(1), Bareilly

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

ITA 498/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Siddharth Singh V. The Ito 1(1) 43/S-3, Greater Green Park Bareilly Bareilly Tan/Pan:Frhps5158G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 69A

Rs.3,64,530/- from profit & gains and also income from other sources. The assessee had also claimed Rs.40,12,222/- as exempted income (Agricultural Income). Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS to verify the agricultural income. The assessee was asked to furnish evidence ... support of the agricultural income. Being not satisfied with the explanations furnished by the assessee with Page 2 of 4 regard to the agricultural income, the AO treated the agricultural income declared by the assessee as income from undisclosed sources and added the same to the total income

Tirlochan Singh, Pilibhit vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Pilibhit

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

ITA 497/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Tirlochan Singh V. The Income Tax Officer Post Kadher Choura Ward 2(5) Rampur Kone, Puranpur Pilibhit Pilibhit Tan/Pan:Damps7604M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

assessee e-filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 05.08.2017, declaring a total income of Rs.2,26,690/- plus Agricultural income of Rs.3,04,226/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS to examine the issue of cash deposit during the demonetization ... deposits. However, the assessee did not furnish any explanation about the nature and source of cash deposits. The AO, thereafter, reduced the amount of agricultural income of Rs.3,04,226/- declared by the assessee from the total cash deposit of Rs.10,83,000/- and treated the balance, i.e. Rs.7

Sunita Rani 40 Ms Tej Ram Harish Kumar Add. Mandi Sirsa, Haryana vs. The Deputy Director of Income Tax CPC Bangaluru Joa Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Sirsa, Haryana

ITA 546/DEL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 194Q

Particulars Amount 1. Total receipts offered to tax under various heads (including receipts under 35,65,164/- Schedule El other than the Agricultural income part) in the return 2. Total Receipts as per Form 26 AS 54,39,634/- 3. Credit of TDS claimed by the assessee in the return

M/S. Piaggio Vehicles Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 868/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.868/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Piaggio Vehicles Private Ltd., V The Assistant Sky One Corporate Park, S Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Survey Tax, Circle-4, Pune. No.239/02, Near Pune Airport, Pune – 411032. Pan: Aabcp1225G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddhesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Vidya Ratan - Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 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)-13, Pune For Assessment Year 2015-16 Dated 06.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Refund Of Excess Taxes Paid On Dividend Distributed On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Granting The Benefit Of Article 11 Of The India-

Section 115Section 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 4

hence, taxable) and not on the balance 60% of the income (because that income was attributable to the agricultural activities, and hence, regarded as "agricultural income" beyond the purview of the Act). The Revenue challenged this decision before the Hon'ble SC c. The Hon'ble SC noted that ... dividend is included in ‘income’ and is thus covered by Entry 82 of List I to Seventh Schedule, “taxes on income, other than agricultural income”. The argument on behalf of the assessee was that in “pith and substance” DDT was a tax on Agricultural income, which was rejected

Hitesh Jagat Parekh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 25(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 4429/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaravs. Ito, Ward 25(2)(4) Hitesh Jagat Prekh R No. 218, Kautilya 2-3, Ground Floor, Shivam Bhavn, C-41 To C-43, Hatkesh Society, N.S. G Block, Bkc, Bandra Road, No.8, Vile Parle (W) (E), Mumbai – 400 056. Mumbai – 400 051. Pan/Gir No. Agqpp9134J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

additions back into the income of the assessee. 12. Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs. CIT 115 taxmann.com 38 (Allahabad) (2020) cash deposit claimed it from agricultural income prove to cultivation of agricultural produce by Khasra source of irrigation - cold storage evidence - Addition u/s 68 as undisclosed income - upheld

Nilesh Popatlal Gada, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 1538/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1961 it be held that disallowance of claim of agriculture income of Rs 5,52,310/- and addition u/s 68 of the Act treating the same as unexplained cash credit is unwarranted, unjustified and contrary ... books, one containing copies of documents relied and another containing case laws. 2.1 Ld.AR submitted that during the year the assessee has shown Net Agricultural Income of Rs.5,52,310/- in the Return of Income. Ld.AR invited our attention to page 3 of the Paper Book which is copy

Basant Jain, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle 29, Delhi

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

ITA 2749/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

proprietor of M/s Jainsons Jewellers, is engaged in the business of trading of gold, diamond and silvery jewellery. Further, the assessee also earned exempt agricultural income of Rs. 50,71,980/-. During the course of survey at the business premises of the assessee stock was physically inventoried and valued

Rachna Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2531/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

That the Appellant during the year under consideration, derives income chargeable to tax under the head Income from house property, Income from capital gain, Agricultural income and Income from other sources. 3. A revised return was filed on 23-09-2016, declaring taxable income of Rs. 68,92,570/in which

Rachna Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 29, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5418/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Arun Kumar Dhondi Kubeer, Armoor vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nizamabad

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

ITA 670/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumara N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.667 To 670/Hyd/2024 & Sa Nos. 17 To 19/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14) Shri Arun Kumar Dhondi Vs. Income Tax Officer Kubeer, Armoor Ward-1 Pan:Aazpd7647P Nizamabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A. K Hanmandloo राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Sr-Ar Shri R Kumaran Appeared For Sr.Ar Shri Madam Mohan Meena सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: C.A. K HanmandlooFor Respondent: : SR-AR Shri R Kumaran appeared for Sr.AR Shri

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271

profits from Partnership firms (i) Arun Paints and Hardware and (ii) M/s. Navanatha Puri Finance Corporation, capital gains, interest income as well as agricultural income. The assessee filed his Return of Income for the Asst. Year 2011-12 on 04.05.2018 admitting a total income of Rs.5,29,400 and estimated ... Agricultural income of Rs.1,65,000. The Appellant was served upon notices u/s 133(6) regarding transactions with The Citizen Co-operative Credit Society. The Appellant has filed his response to notice u/s 133(6) along with the information called for. The Case has been selected for scrutiny and served