“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

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

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 799/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

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

Thenmozhi Ganesan, Dindigul vs. PCIT, Madurai-1

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1628/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1628/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Thenmozhi Ganesan, The Principal Commissioner Of 13A, Collectorate, Vs. Income Tax, Indira Nagar, Madurai. Dindigul 624 004. Pan: Adtpt 8145C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Bhupendran, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai-1 [‘Pcit’ I Short] Dated 25.03.2024 For Assessment Years 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On 1-5 Grounds Which Are As Under: Ita No.1628 /Chny/2024 ‘’1) The Order Of The Learned Pcit Is Bad & Erroneous In Law. 2) The Learned Pcit Erred In Not Considering The Submission Filed By The Appellant In Proper Perspective. 3) The Learned Pcit Erred In Not Considering The Scope & Effect Of The Amendment Made In Section 40(A)(Ia) In Proper Perspective. 4) The Order By The Learned Pcit Directing The Assessing Officer To Pass A Fresh Assessment Order By Disallowing 100 Percent U/S. 40(A)(Ia), Without Cancelling The Earlier Assessment Order, As Mandated By Section 263 Is Bad In Law. 5) Invoking Section 263, When The Issue Of Disallowance U/S. 40(A)(Ia), At The Time Of Passing The Assessment Order Dated 10/03/2022 U/S.148, Was Not Free From Doubt, Is Not Legally Tenable’.

For Appellant: Shri. S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194CSection 263Section 40

filed her return of income for the Assessment Year[AY] 2014- 15 on 11.10.2014 declaring a total income of Rs.4,19,060/- and agricultural income of Rs.2,59,655/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under the CASS and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income

Chagan Yadav, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Alwar

ITA 1033/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 147

before the revenue authorities and also relied upon his written submissions. It was submitted by ld. AR that assessee was a farmer and had agriculture income in the current as well as past years but AO has rejected the claim of the assessee because of the reason that assessee could ... revenue authorities. It was submitted that since assessee could not 5 SHRI CHAGAN YADAV VS ITO, WARD 1(1), Alwar substantiate his agricultural income by way of documentary evidences therefore, additions were rightly upheld by ld. CIT(A). 5.4 I have heard the counsels for both the parties and also

Kuldeep Singh, Sas Nagar, Punjab vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(5), Chandigarh

ITA 362/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Danish Abdullah, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 253

which was processed as such under section 143(1) of the Act. the case was selected for scrutiny through limited scrutiny having reasons “Large Agricultural Income”. 3. Statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Act alongwith the reason was issued on 13/08/2018 and served upon the assessee through ... That during the period under consideration, the assessee is an agriculturist and derived income from other source at Rs. 1,85,804/- and net agricultural income of Rs. 31,95,210/-shown in the return. The assessee vide this office questionnaire dated 4.7.2019 was required to furnish details of land

Ramilaben Dineshbhai Moradiya, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1095/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Preyashi Tated, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

advance for the sale of agricultural land. However, the land was not sold during the relevant accounting year, and she had cash accumulated from agricultural income, which was deposited into her bank account. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that the AO incorrectly added all credit entries in the bank account totalling ... land was inherited by his legal heirs, including the assessee and her children. The assessee stated that savings were made from exempt agricultural income to prepare for her elder daughter’s upcoming marriage on December 7, 2012, and further submitted that the deposits were capital receipts rather than taxable income

Pragati Green Meadows and Resorts Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 117/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.116 & 117/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pragati Green Meadows Vs. Dy. C. I. T. & Resorts Ltd Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaccp5283H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

intimation was issued u/s 143(1) on 3/11/2019 and determined the total income at Rs.11,88,29,960/- by making additions towards disallowance of agricultural income and belated payment of employees contribution to EPF and ESI. Subsequently, the case has been selected for scrutiny and the order ... dated 10/06/2021. The learned CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee where the issue on additions towards agricultural income has been set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification, however, confirmed the additions made towards belated payment of employees contribution to EPF/ESI. 4. Aggrieved

Pragati Green Meadows and Resorts Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 116/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

Basheer Kodumayil Abdulla, Calicut vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kozhikode

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 836/COCH/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69A

income derived from agricultural sales admeasuring ac.25.00. The assessee has also failed to file all the relevant evidence(s) in support of his agricultural income receipts. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view in these peculiar facts that a lump sum addition of Rs.18

Thahira Beevi, Trivandrum vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax., Trivandrum

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 745/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Sri Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 251

assessee’s plea i.e., sale of gold ornaments of Rs.5 lakhs for the purpose of making investment in M/s. Mini Medical Trust; disallowance of agricultural income of Rs.48,000/- and interest on bank charges amounting to Rs.3,63,985/-; respectively. He submits that it was the bounden duty ... heads of additions in principle; the fact remains that availability of cash in hand in assessee’s case as well as having derived some agricultural income, could not be altogether ruled out. We accordingly are of the considered view that valuation of former addition of Rs.5 lakhs deserves

Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Nagpur vs. Shri Waman Mahadeorao Sarode, Nagpur

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

ITA 189/NAG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

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

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

Section 147Section 148Section 250(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

only source of income is salary. The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee has not disclosed any agricultural income in return of income. 2 Shri Waman Mahadeorao Sarode 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the contradiction on the date of possession ... purchase of immovable property in cash. The contention of the assessee is that, the said investment has been made from the saving account and agricultural income, which was not acceptable to the Assessing Officer, as the assessee failed to submit any documentary evidences explaining the source of cash payment

Dinesh Naran Patel-HUF, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 950/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Mamta KholiyaFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

during Demonetization period, which formed part of their Income earned during the concerned year as well as in past periods, in the nature of 'Agricultural Income' as well as 'Compensation from use of Shuttering Materials' and which they genuinely offered for tax every year. 3. The learned assessing officer erred ... such cash deposit. In response to that the Appellant submitted source of cash deposit was cash aggregated for number of years in relation to agricultural income and income from leasing out shuttering material earned by the Appellant. The Appellant furnished summary of cash transactions as per books of account maintained

Nandkumar Yadavrao Tasgaonkar, Mumbai Dadar (West) vs. JCIT, Circle - 16(3), Ayakar Bhavan

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1726/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143(3)

submission filed by the Appellant on 02-07-2017 and 20-06-2023. 3. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of agricultural income of Rs.6.35,27,350/-, made by the Ld. A.O. as unexplained income. 4. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Deemed

Gauttam Nipinbhai Nagarsheth, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 154/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.154/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Gautam Nipinbhai The Pr.Cit-3, बनाम/ Nagarsheth Ahmedabad V/S. D-37, Aaryaman Bungalows Nr.Railway Crossing Opp. Anand Niketan School Thaltej Shilaj, Thaltej Ahmedabad – 380 059 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakpn 7077 J (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Rajvaidya, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11-03-2022 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit”) Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Pcit, Wherein The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Has Been Set Aside On The Gautam Nipinbhai Nagarsheth Vs. The Pr.Cit-3 Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rajvaidya, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57Section 68

individual and filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 01-08-2017 declaring total income of Rs.33,84,400/- and agricultural income of Rs.4,23,572/-, which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Later on, the case was selected for the scrutiny under CASS

Arya Vysya Sangha, Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hubli

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1270/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 12.09.2019 declaring total income at Nil, agricultural income of Rs.1,84,770. The assessee claimed exemption u/s. section 11(1) Explanation 2 of Rs.13,50,099. The said return was processed on 09.03.2019 rejecting

Arya Vysya Sangha, Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hubli

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1269/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)

Florence Agro Farms, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-23(1)(6), Mumbai

ITA 2093/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

Section 10(1)Section 68

land of 17.5 acres situated in the agriculture belt where surrounding land are used for agricultural activity and grapes and vegetable can give the agriculture income of Rs 34,00,001/-per year. 10. The Learned CIT(A) further erred in rejecting the claim of the assessee for carrying

Florence Agro Farms, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(1)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 2092/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. J B Bairagra/Ms. Rupa Nanda

Section 10(1)Section 68

surroundi agriculture belt where surrounding land are used for agricultural ng land are used for agricultural activity and grapes and vegetable can give the agriculture income of activity and grapes and vegetable can give the agriculture income of activity and grapes and vegetable can give the agriculture income ... notices were issued and complied with course of scrutiny proceeding, course of scrutiny proceeding, the Assessing Officer the Assessing Officer for justifying income from agriculture income from agriculture operation, asked the assessee to file detail asked the assessee to file detail of expenses as well as sales of as well

ACIT., Circle-1(1), Tirupati vs. Ponnambalam Krishnan, Chittoor

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 655/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G, Accountnat Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.655/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ponnambalam Krishnan, Tax, Circle 1(1), Tirupati. Vs. Ekjambarakuppam, Chittoor, A.P. Pan : Bedpk5641B (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.11/Hyd/2024 (Assessment Year:2017-18) (By Assessee) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala,Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 10/09/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की रीख/Pronouncement: 20/09/2024

For Appellant: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala,SR-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 40Section 68

called for u/s. 142(1) leading to disallowance of depreciation claimed for Rs.53,293/-. (5) The assessee failed to furnish the documentary evidences towards agricultural income of Rs.15,28,700/-.The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have called for a remand report on the submission.” 3. There is a delay ... Disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.53,393/-. e) Addition of Rs 15,28,700 by changing the head of agriculture income as income from other sources. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and assailed

Amarabhai Ramjibhai Patel, Banaskantha vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Palanpur

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

ITA 234/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, learned Assessing Officer erred in treating the Agricultural income of Rs.5,20,170/- as income from unexplained sources. Ground No: 06 That learned A.O. had no jurisdiction to determine tax liability as per higher rate ... respect of undisclosed Net Profit, addition of Rs.31,10,750/- in respect of cash deposits and addition of Rs.5,20,170/- in respect of agricultural income as unexplained. Assessment Year: 2017-18 Page 3 of 4 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before

Kamlesh Mahendrabhai Dave, Mahemdabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Nadiad

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

ITA 672/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

showing total income at Rs. Nil wherein the assessee has shown business loss of Rs.62,203/-, interest income of Rs.14,903/- and agricultural income of Rs.1,85,748/-. in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued on 27.03.2018. After taking cognisance