← 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

Subbiyan Rathinakumar, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-3(2), Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1654/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 133ASection 148

No.15 of the Ld.CIT(A) order at Para No.7.6.1, wherein, the Ld.CIT(A) noted that the AO disallowed the claim of Rs.5 lakhs as agricultural income, since assessee failed to file evidences regarding ITA Nos.1641, 1654 & 1655/Chny/2024 (AYs 2018-19, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Mr. Subbiyan Rathinakumar :: 5 :: ownership ... However, it was brought to our notice that during the appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee had filed copy of Adangal Register, Agricultural Income Certificate, etc., However, the Ld.CIT(A) didn’t accept the same since they were filed for the first time during the appellate proceedings

Subbiyan Rathinakumar, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-3(3), Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1641/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 133ASection 148

No.15 of the Ld.CIT(A) order at Para No.7.6.1, wherein, the Ld.CIT(A) noted that the AO disallowed the claim of Rs.5 lakhs as agricultural income, since assessee failed to file evidences regarding ITA Nos.1641, 1654 & 1655/Chny/2024 (AYs 2018-19, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Mr. Subbiyan Rathinakumar :: 5 :: ownership ... However, it was brought to our notice that during the appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee had filed copy of Adangal Register, Agricultural Income Certificate, etc., However, the Ld.CIT(A) didn’t accept the same since they were filed for the first time during the appellate proceedings

Kamleshbhai Vinodbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(2), Baroda Now Ward 4(1)(7), Baroda, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1239/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1239/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Kamleshbhai Vinodbhai Patel, Income Tax Officer, At Ravpura, बनामVs Ward-4(2)(2), . Taluka Sankheda, Baroda. Chhotaudepur, Now Ward 4(1)(7), Dhandhuka, Baroda. Gujarat-391135. Pan: Avkpp8248E

For Appellant: Shri Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68

facts and law? (a) By confirming the addition of Rs.17,94,872/- made by the A.O rejecting evidence submitted by the appellant? For agriculture income. (b) A.O who is in the salary ward having jurisdiction over salaried persons had no jurisdiction over the appellant ... perused the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee through his advocate has given certificate/affidavit relating to the agriculture income as well as Talati certificate regarding estimated agricultural income from the family lands of the assessee. From the perusal of the records

Vijaybhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(3), Vadodara

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

ITA 1104/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1104/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Vijaybhai Patel Income Tax Officer 1-25 Station Vistar, At & Ward 1(3)(3), Vadodara Vs. Po: Bhilapur, Ta: Dabhoi, Vadodara - 391107 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Blapp8447A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Hardik Vora, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr 27/11/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 26.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File His Return Of Income For A.Y.2012-13. The Ao Had Received An Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.91,71,500/- In His Bank Account With Bank Of Baroda. Therefore, The Case Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Was Not Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee Regarding The Source Of This Cash Deposit. Therefore, An Addition Of Rs.91,71,500/- Was Made In

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

made in ITA No. 369/Ahd/2024 [Prashant Chandulal Parikh, HUF vs. ACIT] A.Y. 2017-18 - 2 – respect of unexplained cash deposits. Further, the agricultural income of Rs.6,70,465/- was also added to income in the absence of any details regarding land holding as well as agricultural activities. The assessment ... well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.6,70,465/- on account of unexplained agriculture income. 7. It is therefore prayed that the above addition/disallowance made by the assessing officer may please be deleted.” ITA No. 369/Ahd/2024 [Prashant Chandulal Parikh

Narasimha Reddy Chimmula, Gummadidala Village vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 190/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Rani, DR
Section 115BSection 271ASection 44ASection 69

represent sale consideration of agricultural produce received from Government of Telangana through banking channels. 3. The Learned CIT(A) also erred in treating the agricultural income estimated as unexplained investment and accordingly erred in taxing the same under the provisions of Section 115BBE of the I.T.Act since the Assessing Officer ... have identified the source as Agricultural income themselves. 4. The Appellant craves to add to, amend or modify the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, if it is considered necessary. 2. Ld.AR had drawn our attention to the assessment order, wherein

Narasimha Reddy Chimmula, Gummadidala Village vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 189/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Rani, DR
Section 115BSection 271ASection 44ASection 69

represent sale consideration of agricultural produce received from Government of Telangana through banking channels. 3. The Learned CIT(A) also erred in treating the agricultural income estimated as unexplained investment and accordingly erred in taxing the same under the provisions of Section 115BBE of the I.T.Act since the Assessing Officer ... have identified the source as Agricultural income themselves. 4. The Appellant craves to add to, amend or modify the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, if it is considered necessary. 2. Ld.AR had drawn our attention to the assessment order, wherein

Karam Chand Chauhan, Shimla vs. Income Tax Officer, Rampur, Rampur Bushahr

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 716/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.716/Chd/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Karam Chand Chauhan, बनाम Income Tax Officer, 1, Jharag Vill. Baral, Rohru Rampur Bushahr Shimla, Himachal Pradesh 171207 "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Ajnpc4551E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Vivek Vardhan, J.C.I.T

assessment order to submit that the assessee in the return of income had offered a taxable income of Rs.75,216/- and also declared an agricultural income of Rs.25,85,223/-. 3. The ld. counsel has further submitted that the aforesaid agricultural income was kept at home. However, due to demonetization ... amounting to Rs.65 lacs. He therefore, has submitted that the aforesaid cash deposits were out of the savings of the earlier years and the agricultural income for the year under consideration. 4. The ld. DR could not rebut the aforesaid contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore

Smt. Nithya Govindarajan, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-1(3), Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

ITA 1687/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms.L.Sweety, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153(1)Section 2

total income of Rs.6,19,650/- and the AO passed the Assessment Order on 16.12.2019 by determining total income at Rs.96,30,024/- and agricultural income for rate purposes at Rs.2,49,480/-. The AO in the Assessment Order dated 16.12.2019 has taken note of the fact of issuing notice

Mrs. Sabena Prakash, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1480/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 274Section 44A

Appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the treatment of the agricultural income of Rs.34,53,468 as income under the head Income from Other Sources by the learned assessing officer on the facts and circumstances ... have considered the fact that the Appellant is carrying on agriculture activity and ought to have allotted the income on proportionate basis between the agricultural income and business income on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Without prejudice the learned Assessing Officer erred in law in levying interest

Sanjay Jayantibhai Patel, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1439/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Adjournment application filed
Section 144Section 250Section 68

learned NFAC has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.64,68,426/- made u/s 68 of the Act in respect of agricultural income. Sanjay Jayantibhai Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 2– (2) That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC ought to have considered and accepted ... fact that the agricultural income was shown by mistake and bonafide Rs. 64,68,426/- instead agricultural income of error of of CA at the correct Rs.20,00,000/- as explained in appellate proceedings.” 3. The Revenue filed adjournment. 4. In this case, the issue pertains to examination of agricultural

Sonal Sandeep Satav, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-2, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 945/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

ITAT held that where assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny for reasons that it deposited large cash during demonetization and showed large agricultural income, however AO merely relied on assessee's submissions which included sale bills for agricultural income and claimed that cash deposits were made

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

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

ITA 3647/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and particularly additional ground raised vide application dated 27/11/2023, we deem it appropriate to adjudicate this appeal without hearing the assessee.

Section 68

brief facts of the case are that the assesse filed its return of income on 26/03/2017 declaring a returned income of Rs.9,67,350/- + agricultural income Rs.15,00,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment in order to examine the source of cash deposits made in the various banks

Prashant Chandulal Parikh, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 369/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 369/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ Prashant Chandulal Assistant Commissioner Of Parikh, Huf Income Tax Vs. C/O M/S. Chandulal J Circle 5(2)(1), Ahmedabad Parikh, 303 Ushadep Complex, Nr. Navrangpura, Railway Crossing, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380009 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadhp9467M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Rajendera K Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/11/2024 /11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Rajendera K Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

bank account, the AO found that the total cash deposit during the year was Rs.24,48,000/-, which was explained to be out of agricultural income. The AO was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee in this regard and the entire cash deposit was treated as unexplained ... learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in confirming the decision of AO in rejecting the claim of agriculture income inter alia making addition u/s 69A of Rs. 24,48,000/- and taxing the same u/s 115BBE, inspite of all the documents and evidences of earning the agriculture income clearly brought

Gujarat Rajput Hitwardhak Mandal, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1469/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

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

Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 11ASection 12ASection 271(1)(c)

showing Rs. 19,16,494/- as non-corpus donation and Rs. 1,08,46,340/- as exempt agricultural income. Since the assesse made wrong claim u/s. 11(1)(d), penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) was initiated and levied a penalty of Rs. 4,49,200/-. 4. Aggrieved against

Bhogilal Bhailalbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 613/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 613/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) बनाम/ Bhogilal Bhailalbhai The Pr. Commissioner Of Patel Income Tax-1 Vs. 475/2, Sagar Faliya, At & Vadodara Post Bhayali, Vadodara - 391410 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bkkpp3136R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Hemant Suthar, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Samir Tekriwal, Cit. Dr 19/11/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2024

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Samir Tekriwal, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

that the assessee had filed the return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 31.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.6,19,980/- and agricultural income of Rs. 1,94,450/-. The original assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of ITA No. 613/Ahd/2024 [Bhogilal Bhailalbhai Patel vs. PCIT

Shri Deepak Suresh Gadge, Nagpur vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

ITA 23/NAG/2018[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2013-2014

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 234A

business income of ` 3,29,80,879, capital gains of ` 4,59,13,000 and income from other sources of ` 2,32,205, alongwith agricultural income of ` 6,14,000 claimed as exempt. During the course of assessment proceedings, while verifying unsecured loans given to the assessee by M/s. Sandeep

Mr. Pratapa Gouda Patil, Maski vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur

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

ITA 2013/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

observe that in this case, the assessee has filed its return of income on 13.1.2021 declaring an income of Rs.22,39,350/- and agricultural income of Rs.34,06,800/. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO called for the details of agricultural income from the assessee. However, the assessee ... could not be able to substantiate the genuineness of agricultural income before the AO. Accordingly, the AO taxed the entire agricultural income as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. We observe that before ld. CIT(A), no one appeared from the side of assessee, even after the issuance

Greens Natures Fresh Produce Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1781/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)

proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits. 4. In both the appeals, the issue raised by the assessee is regarding disallowance of agricultural income claimed as exemption in the return of income. For the Assessment Year 2017-18, the agricultural income declared by the assessee is Rs.1 ... submitted and it was noted that the revenue from operations weas declared at Rs.6,77,72,000/- and declared Nil income from business and agricultural income at Rs.1,36,84,050/-. The company has leased 53 acres and 2 guntas of land from Shri. Anil C. Gowda and Smt. Ramya

Greens Natures Fresh Produce Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1780/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)

proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits. 4. In both the appeals, the issue raised by the assessee is regarding disallowance of agricultural income claimed as exemption in the return of income. For the Assessment Year 2017-18, the agricultural income declared by the assessee is Rs.1 ... submitted and it was noted that the revenue from operations weas declared at Rs.6,77,72,000/- and declared Nil income from business and agricultural income at Rs.1,36,84,050/-. The company has leased 53 acres and 2 guntas of land from Shri. Anil C. Gowda and Smt. Ramya

Samsher, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-3, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9864/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh.M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Samsher Singh Vs. Ito House No.11, Garhi Ward-3 Alawalpur, Dharuhera, Haryana Rewari Pan No.Eopps5450P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271Section 54Section 54B

JCIT Rewari. In response of the notice the assessee has filed his return of income on 10-06-2016 declaring income nil and agricultural income Rs. 30210/-. A notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. Again notice