← 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

Siddireddy Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, Kadiyam Mandal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 326/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.326/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Siddireddy Veera Venkata Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Satyanarayana Murthy, Ward-2(3), Kadiyam Mandal, Rajahmundry. East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh-533126. Pan: Bpaps5187Q (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 : 08/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 23/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna, Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

12/04/2017 declaring total income of Rs. NIL. In the return, the assessee claimed a loss of Rs. 3,603/- and also claimed net agricultural income of Rs. 26,51,178/- as exempt. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason “large agricultural income ... Representative of the assessee submitted that the information on various dates. During the assessment proceedings, in order to verify the genuineness of the said agricultural income, cash deposits and property transactions, the assessee was asked to furnish the documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In response, the assessee filed

Kuppusamy Vadivel Selvakumar, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward-4, Cuddalore

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

ITA 2133/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2133/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kuppusamy Vadivel Selvakumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1197/A Kumbakonam Road, Ward 4, Keezhakollai Marungur, Cuddalore, Cuddalore. Tamil Nadu 607 103. [Pan:Enrps9693P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 41 Days. On Perusal Of The Affidavit Along With Medical Certificate, Submissions Of The Ld. Ar & Ld. Dr, We Find The Reasons Explained By The Assessee Are 2

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69A

para 4 of the impugned order. She argued that the assessee does not deserve any opportunity and moreover there was no proof of agricultural income. Thus, the ld. DR prayed to dismiss the ground raised by the assessee. 8. After hearing both the parties, we find the Assessing Officer made

Marappa Gounder Ramasam, Namakkal vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Namakkal

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

ITA 1770/CHNY/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1770/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Marappa Gounder Ramasam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Annai Poultry Farm, Ariyur Village, Ward 2, Ariyur Post, Namakkal 637 015. Namakkal. [Pan: Agmpr0841A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Ground No. 1 Raised By The Assessee In Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Disallowance Of ₹.2,98,500/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposit.

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

confirming the addition of ₹.3,94,500/- on account of unexplained cash deposit. 11. The assessee claimed ₹.17,02,850/- as agricultural income. The Assessing Officer doubted the same while comparing the agricultural income of earlier year i.e., AY 2016-17 with the year under consideration. According to the Assessing ... Officer, the assessee claimed huge agricultural income in the year under consideration. We note that it was 7 I.T.A. No.1770/Chny/24 explained that the assessee has 22 acres of agricultural land, out of which, 6 acres of land are used for poultry business and remaining 16 acres for agricultural activities

G Sekar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 3(5), Chennai

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

ITA 1417/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1417/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 M/S. G.Sekar, Huf, Income Tax Officer, No.1, Palat Madhavan Road, Non-Corp, Ward-3(5), Mahalingapuram, Chennai. Chennai-34 [Pan: Aadhg6924J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri J.Vignesh, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri J.Vignesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 129Section 143(3)Section 250

nothing was produced during appellate proceedings. This is limited scrutiny assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the act to examine the claim of huge agricultural income. The appellant did not make any written submissions either. In the absence of the same, it is to be held that the appellant ... were provided :- 4 -: to the assesse. The Ld. CIT(A) has observed that it is a limited scrutiny case to examine claim of huge agricultural income without appreciating that the assesse had challenged conversion of limited to complete scrutiny issue in its grounds of appeal extracted by the appellate authority

D.Ramgopal, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Coimbatore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 584/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 583 /Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -1, Ganapathypudur, Coimbatore. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Principal Commissioner Of Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Income Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -2, Ganapathypudur, Chennai. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. G.V. Jhabakh, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. G.V. Jhabakh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 50C

addition as Long Term capital Gain without considering the expenses involved therein. 2. The assessing officer and the ld.CIT(A) also not considered the agriculture income and treating the income at nil without considering the agriculture expenses. 3. The assessing officer and the ld.CIT(A) erred in not considering ... return of income. Finally, the assessee filed the return of income in response to notice 153A on 02.01.2016 by declaring Nil income and agricultural income of Rs.7,43,000/-. The assessment was completed after providing opportunities to the appellant u/s.153A of the Act on 30.03.2016 by adding interest from fixed

D.Ramgopal, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Coimbatore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 583/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 583 /Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -1, Ganapathypudur, Coimbatore. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Principal Commissioner Of Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Income Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -2, Ganapathypudur, Chennai. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. G.V. Jhabakh, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. G.V. Jhabakh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 50C

addition as Long Term capital Gain without considering the expenses involved therein. 2. The assessing officer and the ld.CIT(A) also not considered the agriculture income and treating the income at nil without considering the agriculture expenses. 3. The assessing officer and the ld.CIT(A) erred in not considering ... return of income. Finally, the assessee filed the return of income in response to notice 153A on 02.01.2016 by declaring Nil income and agricultural income of Rs.7,43,000/-. The assessment was completed after providing opportunities to the appellant u/s.153A of the Act on 30.03.2016 by adding interest from fixed

Kuppusamy Savitha, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Erode

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 1554/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1554/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Kuppusamy Savitha Ito बनाम/ 162, Neithalapuram, Thalavady, Ward-2(1), Vs. Erode-638 461. Erode. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Dlops-8978-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Bhupendran (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ashwin D Gowda (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Bhupendran (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D Gowda (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

income as unexplained income u/s 69 in the absence of any satisfactory reply forthcoming from the assessee. Further, as per working, the assessee received agricultural income of Rs.3.50 Lacs only whereas she reflected agricultural income of Rs.5.21 Lacs and therefore, the differential of Rs.1.71 Lacs was separately added as income ... assessee has filed certain responses to Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings. With these responses, the assessee furnished various documents which include agricultural income statement and land details, purchase bills, bank statements and ledger extracts. The copies of the same are on record at Page Nos.9

Asrafkhan Kalndrkhan Pathan, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1042/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1042/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Asrafkhan Kalndrkhan Pathan The Acit बनाम Sardar Apartment Circle-1(3), / Kanch Ni Masjid Ahmedabad V/S. Jamalpur Ahmedabad – 380 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Agcpp 7537 R अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.R. Popat, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Popat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

30th December 2016). The CASS parameters highlighted the need for further investigation into the source of these deposits, as well as scrutiny of agricultural income and other financial transactions. A notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the AO on 09/08/2018, requiring the assessee to produce ... issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, again requesting explanations for the cash deposits, as well as documentary evidence to support the agricultural income and the source of funds for the purchase of a new vehicle. The assessee did not provide sufficient evidence or explanations in response to these