“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

Amarjit Singh, Sonipat, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sonipat, Haryana

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

ITA 1989/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

appellant is an illiterate farmer & he owns 10 acres (approx) of agriculture land during the A. Y 2012-13, from which he was earning agriculture income of Rs 4,00,000/- to Rs 4,50,000/- (Net) per year and has sold a small piece of agricultural land having area ... withdrawals made by the appellant in the year under consideration & cash withdrawals made in the previous years starting from the year 2008 to 2011 & agriculture income earned Rs 4,00,000/- to Rs 4,50,000/- per year. 3. Non-Consideration of Evidences The Ld. CIT(A) has ignored

Gulamnabi Nuramahmadbhai Momin, Plot vs. ITO Ward 3(2)(2), Pratayashkar Bhavan

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

ITA 1059/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1059/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Gulamnabi Nuramahmadbhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Momin Ward-3(2)(2) V/S. 524A, Opp. Adarsh Hospital Ahmedabad Nr. Telav Shela Cross Road At Telav, Sanand 382 110 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Apepm 7307 M अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.D. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 29.12.2023, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Primary Grievance Of The Assessee Pertains To The Addition Of Rs.40,00,000/- Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Made By The Assessing Officer As Per His Order Dated 09/12/2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. Gulamnabi Nuramahmadbhai Momin Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 68

certain documents, such as the gift deed and the Sarpanch’s certificate, crucial documentary evidence (e.g., the father's bank statements and records of agricultural income) is still missing. The lack of these documents weakens the assessee's claim of the genuineness and source of the gift. However ... assessee, such as the notarized gift deed and land records. Given that the assessee's father is claimed to be a farmer with agricultural income (which is exempt under the Act), this requires further factual verification. 6.2. Considering the facts that the CIT(A)'s order does not adequately address

Surinder Kaur, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 37, Kolkata

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

ITA 1402/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

case of the appellant are that the assessee submitted its return of income on 27.01.2018 showing total income at Rs. 18,36,450/- including agricultural income of Rs. 6,41,250/-. The case of the assessee has been selected for scrutiny, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued ... I.T.A. No.: 1402/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Surinder Kaur. has also been issued and ultimately the case was decided ex-parte. Details of the agricultural income have been asked from the assessee, assessee has filed only the copy of the agricultural land and there was no bill and voucher related

Jagadesh Kanderi, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 888/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.888/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jagadesh Kanderi Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Vs. Ward-4(1) [Pan : Aeopk0220N] Hyderabad अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dondu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aditi Goyal, DR

15/11/2016. Assessee explained that the cash withdrawn from Kotak Mahindra Bank on 09/09/2016 is included in this amount, apart from other agricultural income. Learned Assessing Officer did not consider this contention and added the entire amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the income of the assessee. 3. When assessee preferred ... Officer to delete the same. He further sustained the addition of Rs.12.75 lakhs by not believing the same, which according to the assessee represents agricultural income. 4. It is the contention of the learned Ld.AR that the parents of the assessee reside at the village looking after agricultural operations

Umesh Mahipatrai Adhiya, Mumbai vs. ITO 42(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 643/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhri

For Respondent: Shri Dharamveer D. Yadav- SR. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld AO of Rs.1,87,000/- to the returned income by disallowing genuine claim of exempt agricultural income made u/s 2(1A) of the IT Act, 1961 by holding the same as non-agricultural income and the reason assigned for doing ... income of Rs.8,27,850/- after making additions on account of deemed rent, disallowance of claim of agricultural income and interest on refund. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against this order. Several notices were issued by the Ld. CIT(A), however, no compliance was made

Fresh Bowl Horticulture Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3049/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT, DR

Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

appeal is in respect to income derived from cultivation and sale of white button mushrooms whether to be treated as business income instead of agricultural income, reported by it within the meaning to section 10(1) 2 Fresh Bowl Horticulture ... return form. Case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to examine the issues of "high liabilities as compared to low income/receipts and large agricultural income". Details were called for which assessee furnished proof of land ownership, financial statements along with notes, computation of income, and other details before

Magaraj Mishrimal Rathi, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-5, Pune

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

ITA 734/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. Bora

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154Section 68

after deducting purchase price of Rs.13,10,304/-, an amount of Rs.95,52,296/- was shown as net profit. It was submitted that agricultural income was of only Rs.3,22,971/- but profit on sale of agricultural land of 6 Rs.95,52,296/- was inadvertently shown under the head agricultural ... confirmed for the reasons given by AO in the rectification order dated 18.03.2021. 4.5 As regards, disallowing the exemption of the agricultural income as claimed in ITR amounting to Rs. 98,75,267/- is concerned the appellant has submitted some documents relating to ownership of agricultural land

Ceedeeyes It Parks Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 1(3), Chennai

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 846/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 846/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Ceedeeyes It Parks Private Income Tax Officer, Limited, V. Corporate Ward -1(3), 42, Second Main Road, Gandhi Chennai. Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aaccc-3267-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. P. Hari Babu, Ca अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

loss of Rs, 3,97,54,277/-. The case was selected for scrutiny with the following reasons: i. Low income (including Exempt income and agricultural income) in comparison to high loans/advances/investments in shares appearing in balance sheet. ii. Large business loss set of against other heads of income 5. During

Palanisamy Navaladi, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

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

ITA 1822/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1822/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Palanisamy Navaladi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 102A, Kanganipatti, Parali Post, Ward - 2, Namakkal 637 020. Namakkal. [Pan: Agdpn3363J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 Are General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 144Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

stated that the assessee was a tiles laying contractor and declared salary income, business income, dairy income, bank interest and agricultural income for the period under consideration. The assessee applied section 44AD of the Act on business income. Relevant portion is reproduced in para 6.1 of the impugned order. Further ... before the ld. CIT(A) and filed return of income by showing income, such as, salary income, business income from tiles laying contract and agricultural income. The assessee, particularly, adopted 10% of net profit under section 44AD of the Act in respect of the business receipt as stated to have

Shri Ganga Four Wheels Private Limited, Sikar vs. Income Tax Officer, Sikar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders to cost

ITA 169/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Saraswat, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 142ASection 69B

Constitution of India and Entry 82 in List 1 of the Seventh Schedule thereto, which deals with “Taxes on income other than agricultural income.” 1.13 AO has invoked Section 69B without satisfying the essential requirements, as revealed from the following analysis: S. No. Provisions of Section 69B Status

Rajendra Vishwambhar Shete, Kolhapur vs. ACIT Circle 2 Kolhapur, Kolhapur

ITA 1241/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18 Rajendra Vishwambhar Shete 1320/2, C-Ward, Laxmipuri, Kolhapur0416002. .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant Pan: Accps9419F

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 68

assessee is an individual who filed his return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act declaring total income ₹30,73,000/- and agricultural income ₹1,00,000/- . The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny to verify the limited issue of ‘increase in capital account.’ During the year ... capital account, the assessee’s ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 4 Rajendra Vishwambhar Shete Vs ACIT ITA No.1241/PUN/2024 AY: 2017-18 explanation towards (a) agricultural income of ₹1,60,000/- earned and (b) ₹7,00,000/- gift received from mother were turned down and 50% of such agricultural income

Asha Vinod Tatte, Amravati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Amravati

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5/NAG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

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

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

Section 139Section 2(14)Section 269Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273B

taken or accepted and the person by whom the loan or deposit or specified sum is taken or accepted, are both having agricultural income and neither of them has any income chargeable to tax under this Act: 91[Provided also that the provisions of this section shall have effect

Vimla Devi Meena, Dausa vs. ITO Ward- Dausa, Dausa

ITA 1034/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Chaudhary, JCIT D/R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 234ASection 250

affirmed by the Honble High Court Delhi refer CIT v/s Chetan Gupta 94 CCH 13(Del). In the case of A.K. Kochandi & Ors. vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER(1975) 43 CCH 0749 KerHC (1976) 1976 CTR 0072 (KER) : (1977) 110 ITR 0406held that Assessment—Best judgment assessment— Validity—Notice

Prabhati Devi, Dausa vs. ITO Ward Dausa, Dausa

ITA 1031/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Chaudhary, JCIT D/R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

been affirmed by the Honble High Court Delhi refer CIT v/s Chetan Gupta 94 CCH 13(Del). In the case of A.K. Kochandi & Ors.vs. Agricultural Income Tax Officer (1975) 43 CCH 0749 KerHC (1976) 1976 CTR 0072 (KER) : (1977) 110 ITR 0406held that Assessment—Best judgment assessment—Validity—Notice ... stated under what provision of law he has made the addition and under what head whether, under business or trading income, agriculture income, capital gain or u/s 48, 56 or u/s 68 or 69. Thus the addition so made without any provision of act is also against

M/S Metal Impex, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 805/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.799 To 805/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 To 2020-21 V. M/S. Metal Impex, The Acit, The Lattice, 4Th Floor, Central Circle-1(1), No.20 Waddles Road, Chennai. Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. [Pan: Aamfm 4856 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(2)Section 68

tribunal has found that with regard to cash and jewellery, the explanation of the assessee was that he had agricultural properties and derived agricultural income. That income was utilised to acquire jewellery that was belonging to him and his family. With regard to cash and stated to be recovered from