“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

Mr Dnyaneshwar Baburao Kathe, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Pune

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

ITA 432/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.432/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Dnyaneshwar Baburao Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Pune. Kathe, Janori Dhawa, 10Th Mail Road, Dindori, Nashik- 422206. Pan : Bbppk3199D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Krishna V. Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.01.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law The Honorable Cit(A) Has Erred & Is Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.31,58,740/- By Treating The Cash Deposits Made By The Assessee In The Saving Bank Account Of Dena Bank As Unexplained Income Without Appreciating The Fact That The Said Cash Deposited In The Bank Was Out Of Agriculture Sale Proceeds. The Appellant Prays That The Addition May Please Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Krishna V. GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 148Section 3Section 50CSection 54F

accordingly contended before the Bench that doubt raised by ld. CIT(A)/NFAC regarding ownership/holding of agricultural land no more survives, and therefore, the agricultural income should have been accepted by the Assessing Officer as well as by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 6. The ld. Counsel of the assessee ... /NFAC has not accepted the same. Ld. Counsel of the assessee further relied on various case laws wherein under similar circumstances, the estimation of agricultural income in the absence of bills and vouchers for sale of agricultural produce and receipt for expenses were estimated judiciously and the additions were deleted

Shankar Reddy Enugudala, Chittoor vs. ITO., Ward-1, Madanapalle

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1014/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 1014/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Shankar Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Enugudala Ward 1 Chittoor Madanapalle, Pan:Acipe8837F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S Ganesh राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Aravindakshan, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate S GaneshFor Respondent: : Shri Aravindakshan, DR

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 69A

Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) during the demonetization period. In response, the assessee vide letter dated 19/12/2019 submitted copies of Pattadar Pass Book, copies of agricultural income, certificate from Tehsildar and few copies of bills for the expenses incurred for agricultural operations and also few copies of sales bills of agricultural ... produce and claimed that he does not have any income which is taxable under the Act, other than agricultural income which is exempt income u/s 10 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee observed that the assessee could not explain

Annadurai Balakrishnan, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Erode

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 499/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.499/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Annadurai Balakrishnan Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5/95, Periathottam, Ward 2(5) Oricherry Pudur P.O., Erode Bhavani, Erode 638 315. [Pan: Anipa 8909M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. K. Karthikeyan, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. Karthikeyan, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 69

even considering the income from lorries shown in the return of income. 14. The authorities below ought to have accepted the past savings from agricultural income claimed of Rs. 5,50,000 especially when the assessing officer has accepted the agricultural income for the current year as earning of agricultural ... same. The assessee filed return of income manually on 16.09.2019 admitting an income of Rs.1.80 Lacs u/s 44AE from running of lorries and agricultural income of Rs.2.07 Lacs. The source of cash deposit was stated to be as under: - No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Lorry Hire Income Rs.5

Mannava Ramarao, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.01/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Mannava Ramarao, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-2(3), Pan: Cripm6037J Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 30/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

extent of 10.34 Acres and cultivated the commercial crops like Onion, Turmeric, Maize, Banana and Vegetables. The assessee further explained that in addition to agricultural income, he also earned commission from sale of produce grown by other farmers and whatever the commission received by way of cash, that was deposited ... considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. AO estimated the assessee’s income from agriculture @ Rs. 75,000/- per acre. Accordingly, the total agricultural income derived by the assessee and his family members during the year 3 works out to Rs. 7,75,875/- and also considering the size

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam vs. Poosarla Satyavathi, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and Cross objection filed is assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 117/VIZ/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Bhagavan Builders Pvt Ltd., and Sri Bhagavan Niketan Ltd., amounting to Rs. 91,117/-. Further Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has earned an agricultural income of Rs. 2,40,000/- and as no documentary evidence in support of the same were submitted before him, hence the entire claim ... agricultural income is disallowed and added back to the returned income as unexplained cash credit. 27. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and filed submissions. After considering the submissions of the assessee and material available on record

Linton Projects Private Limited, Vizianagaram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and Cross objection filed is assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 227/VIZ/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Medisi Barkiah, Port Blair vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 579/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: the Ld. Pr. CIT that source of cash found in the course of search action was from the proceeds received on sale of agricultural land, the Ld. Pr. CIT was unjustified in setting aside the assessment and directing the AO on pure surmises and conjectures which clearly shows that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

lacs from the sale of ancestral agricultural land and (ii) Rs. 31.16 lacs in accumulated cash withdrawal from his bank account and agricultural income over time. The assessee and his wife planning to permanently relocate to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and they were carrying through life saving in cash ... documents including bank statement, sale deeds and cash book covering the period from 01.04.2012 to 10.11.2018 which reflected regular withdrawals from the bank and agricultural income. Based on this information, the Ld. AO accepted the return of income and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 03.05.2021 without making further

Nandaleke Harindra Shetty, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1247/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Nandaleke Harindra Shetty, Vs. Ito, 950 3Rd A Cross, 9Th Hrbr Layout, Ward – 1(2)(2), 1St Block, Kalyanangar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 043. Pan : Afqps 8668 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 24.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

vehicles was Rs.19,25,000/-. Further, it was submitted in the statement of facts that the balance sum of Rs.13,53,100/- is from agricultural income and from previous withdrawals from the bank account of the proprietary concern. The CIT(A), however, rejected the contentions raised by the assessee ... contentions of the assessee that Rs.19,25,000/- cash deposited are out of sale of vehicles. Further, CIT(A) did not give credit for agricultural income disclosed in the return of income and also for cash withdrawn which was redeposited. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as follows

St. Joseph'S Education and Medical Relief Society, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax -(E)-II(1), Mumbai

ITA 2509/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhri

Section 12ASection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT

Prabhakar Choudhary, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-2(2)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the addition made by the authorities below is deleted

ITA 2161/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(b)

appellant, an individual, filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 11.11.2020 declaring income of Rs.3,33,430/- and Agricultural income of Rs.36,78,000/-. The gross agricultural income declared was Rs.12,23,002/-,and claimed expenditure of Rs.5,42,500/- shown net agricultural income of Rs.6 ... revised computation of total income, the appellant declared Agricultural income of Rs.14,52,000/- and also declared capital gain on transfer of Agricultural land of Rs.43,94,924/- and claimed exemption under Section 10(37) of the Act. Show cause notice dated 13.09.2022 proposing addition

Geeta Sharma, Sunam vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala

ITA 476/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, CAFor Respondent: ShriRohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253Section 263Section 44ASection 80T

disallowance under Section 10(37) of the Act. It was stated that tax has been calculated on income of Rs.3,79,320/- and [agriculture income of Rs.2,50,000/- only] but not on assessed income of Rs.2,98,60,842/-. 15.2 In the aforesaid Show Cause Notice dated ... your return of income for the A.Y. 2019-20 on 11.11.2019 having e-filing acknowledgement No. 227687890291019 declaring income of Rs.3,79,320/- and agricultural income of Rs. 2,50,000/- claiming refund of Rs. 51,750/-. ITA 476/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2019-20 10 However, on perusal of the facts mentioned

Subramanian Shanmuganathan, Chennai vs. PCIT, Madurai

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

ITA 315/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.314 & 315/Chny/2022 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 143Section 148Section 263

assessee has filed return of income for the A.Y 2012-13 admitting total income of Rs. 15,91,970/- and agricultural income of Rs. 10 Lakhs. The A.O on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing that the assessee has purchased property at T. Nagar, Chennai along with

Subramanian Shanmuganathan, Chennai vs. PCIT, Madurai

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

ITA 314/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.314 & 315/Chny/2022 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 143Section 148Section 263

Jomy Jacob, Malappuram vs. The ITO, Ward -3, Tirur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 699/COCH/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Snr.DR

Section 69

Page 2 of 3 S.A. No. 157/Coch/2023 & made during the demonetisation period as unexplained money u/s. 69 of the act and also disallowed the agricultural income. As against the said order, the assessee field an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and raised various grounds on merits. The Ld.CIT

Dinesh Ramanbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1506/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1506/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dinesh Ramanbhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ 23, Shyam Sharan Part-2 Ward-3(2)(1) V/S. Aarohi Club Road Ahmedabad Bopal-Ghuma Ahmedabad – 380 058 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Btbpp 3659 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) ….. Assessee By : Shri Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 272A(3)(aa)Section 69

individual engaged in farming and did not file his return of income for the AY 2017-18, as he claimed to have only agricultural income. The AO issued notices under Section 142(1) of the Act on multiple occasions, which were not complied with by the assessee. Consequently

Narayan Abarao Jadhav Pishor Tal. Kannad Pishor, Aurangabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Aurangabad

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

ITA 2064/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2064/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit

Section 144Section 234ASection 250

ignored the deposit of withdrawals amount and levied tax on the entire credits. The amount deposited also includes the earlier savings, agricultural income and small loan taken from his mother who is also an agriculturist. It is also stated that the entire deposits in the bank account is exempt income

Sanjay Nimba Pawar, Nashik vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Malegaon

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

ITA 1972/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1972/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit

Section 144Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250Section 69A

u/s.69A of the Act, being of cash deposited in the bank account. The major source for cash deposit during the FY 2011-12 is Agriculture Income of self and joint family and sometimes cash deposited out of the withdrawal made again and again out of the withdrawal made on earlier ... file of Assessing Officer (AO) since assessee could not produce the evidence of owning the agricultural land and earning of agricultural income from agricultural activity of self and his joint family which has been deposited in the Bank account. 4. On the other hand, ld.DR supported the order of lower

Shri Prakash Jiwandas Wanjari, Nagpur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

ITA 232/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 273ASection 80C

assessee is also having taxable salary income and therefore is not covered by the exception granted to cash transactions between 2 persons having only agricultural income. 2.12 The LAO here has only pointed out the only about the strict provision of the section, but he has missed the intention ... under sections 271D and 271E. 2.30 Moreover, the appellant himself and both he and his parents are salaried employees having only salary income and agriculture income. They were not aware of the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and even though they operated bank accounts were unaware of provisions

DCIT, Central Cir-2, Madurai vs. J S Nihar Banu, Palakkad

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 445/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

For Appellant: D. Anand, Advocate

Section 40A(3)

passed within the time) the assessment has become time barred. 11. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Agricultural Income tax vs. Kappumalai Estate reported in 234 ITR 187(Ker.) had held to make the order complete and effective, it should be issued

DCIT, Central Cir-2, Madurai vs. J S Nihar Banu, Palakkad

ITA 444/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019

Section 40A(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक