← 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

Latabai Vijay Jadhav, Shahada vs. Income Tax Officer NFAC Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 1522/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1522/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

assessment year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under : The appellant is an individual deriving income from Dairy farming and Agricultural income etc. The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2018-19 was filed on 31.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs.4,19,870/- and Agricultural income ... Rs.47,31,935/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for Limited Scrutiny for verification of Large Agricultural income in comparison to total income. Statutory notices u/s.143(2)/142(1) were issued to the appellant asking the appellant to substantiate the claim of Agricultural 2 income declared in the Income-tax Return

Madhu Velayudhan, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA No.225 & 226/Hyd/2024 are allowed in part and ITA

ITA 227/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.225, 226 & 227/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the activity carried on by the assessee is fitting into the term "Agricultural Income" defined in Sec.2(1A) of the I.T. Act. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the decision of the Supreme ... from 1.4.2009 wherein it is provided it is provided that the income derived from banana saplings grown in a Nursery is deemed to be agricultural income. 11.Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee

Madhu Velayudhan, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA No.225 & 226/Hyd/2024 are allowed in part and ITA

ITA 226/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.225, 226 & 227/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the activity carried on by the assessee is fitting into the term "Agricultural Income" defined in Sec.2(1A) of the I.T. Act. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the decision of the Supreme ... from 1.4.2009 wherein it is provided it is provided that the income derived from banana saplings grown in a Nursery is deemed to be agricultural income. 11.Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee

Madhu Velayudhan, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA No.225 & 226/Hyd/2024 are allowed in part and ITA

ITA 225/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.225, 226 & 227/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the activity carried on by the assessee is fitting into the term "Agricultural Income" defined in Sec.2(1A) of the I.T. Act. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the decision of the Supreme ... from 1.4.2009 wherein it is provided it is provided that the income derived from banana saplings grown in a Nursery is deemed to be agricultural income. 11.Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee

Avinash Aradhya, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Bangalore, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1418/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 69A

such. . Page 13 of 17 3. It is clarified that the jewellery/gold purchased out of disclosed income or out of exempted income like agricultural income or out of reasonable household savings or legally inherited which has been acquired out of explained sourcesis neither chargeable to tax under the existing provisions

Neelakanth Kuntoji Basavaraj, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1157/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. Neelakanth Kuntoji Basavaraj, Vs. Ito, Spl B-No.120 1St Stage, Ward – 6(2)(1), Peenya Industrial Estate, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 058. Pan : Agspb 4710 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. Kiran Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri. K. Kiran Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 68

Both the Assessment Unit and the National Faceless Appeal Centre have erred in not accepting that the sum of Rs.27,76,000 received as agricultural income. 2. The National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming Rs.46,27,658 as income of the assessee 3. Although the sum found credited ... return of income was filed under section 139(1) of the Act declaring total income of Rs.33,13,640/-. Assessee has also declared net agricultural income of Rs.27,76,000/-. The assessment was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the claim of receipt of agricultural income. During

Anoop Gopikishna Jaju, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Jalna

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

ITA 1557/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1557/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

filed by the appellant on 25.03.2018 claiming loss of Rs.2,69,825/- under the head ‘Income from Other Sources and disclosing Agricultural Income of Rs.16,83,172/-. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS. Statutory notices u/s.143(2)/142(1) were issued to the appellant to which

Balasaheb Pundikrao Ghormode, Akola vs. Income Ta Officer Ward-1, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 409/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sameerkumar R. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

District Akola. The assessee owns a few acres of agricultural land and runs his livelihood on the income generated out of agriculture produce and agriculture income is the sole source of income over the years. It is stated that the assessee is not aware of the income tax provisions ... through the orders of the authorities below. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative appearing for the assessee has produced receipts showing agricultural income which proves that the assessee is carrying on agricultural activities and deriving income therefrom. I also find that the assessee has made small investment

Narayanagr Palanisamy, Coimbaotore vs. ITO, Ncw-4(1), Coimbaotore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application filed by the assessee becomes infructuous

ITA 2277/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2277/Chny/2024 िनधा7रण वष7 /Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Dे यािचका सं. / S.A No.49/Chny/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2277/Chny/2024) िनधा7रण वष7 / Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. N.V.Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 144

upheld the order passed u/s. 144 of the Act rejecting the assessee’s arguments that cash was deposited out of savings from the agricultural income. 3. The Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee has already deposited 20% of the tax demand and the assessment order passed ... further submitted that the assessee has sufficient material to prove that the cash deposited out of agriculture income and therefore, one more opportunity should be given before the A.O to prove his case. 4. The Ld. D.R, on the other hand, opposed the stay application and submitted that the order

Vinodhini, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 921/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.921/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Mrs. Vinodhini Acit बनाम/ Flat No.14, Door No.98, Central Circle-1(2) Harrington Road, Chetpet, Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 031. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bmapv-2726-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-09-2024

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 153CSection 2(14)

claimed that the land was agricultural land and therefore, no gains accrued thereon and accordingly, not offered to tax. The assessee had offered agricultural income of Rs.2.75 Lacs in the return of income but did not produce supporting evidences. Since the land was held by the assessee from

Lickmichand Anand Singhvi, Vellore vs. DCIT, Centralcorc;E-3(3), Chennai

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

ITA 656/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.656/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 54BSection 68

premises of the appellant. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen that income from capital gains of Rs.1,17,20,785/- and agricultural income of Rs.8,75,000/- have already been disclosed by the appellant while filing his return under section 139 and no assessment proceedings ... assessment is bad in law and that the learned AO lacks jurisdiction to make any addition on account of capital gain or disallowance of agricultural income by treating the same as unexplained credit under section 68 is bad in law. 5. The learned CIT(A)- 18 ought to have seen

Vikas Sabharwal HUF, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms as aforesaid

ITA 740/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253Section 69A

selected for complete scrutiny under CASS on the main reason "cash deposits during demonetization period and gross total income including exempt income and agricultural income". Notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 09.08.2018 was issued and served upon the assessee through E-filing Portal

M/S. Salarpuria Homes Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1360/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member Shri Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

particular year has not eamed any exempt income. 5.2.4 The tax laws of India treat certain income as not taxable, such as agricultural income, shares from a partnership firm, income of eligible charitable institutions, and tax- free interest. It is possible that taxpayers might have incurred certain expenditures in order

The ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. M/S. Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel & Co., Kheda

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 201/AHD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashesh R. Rewar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 50CSection 80ISection 92C

same was claimed as deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iv)(a) of the Act. The assessee has also shown agricultural income at Rs. 8,07,509/-. As regards computation of Arms Length Price in specified domestic transaction, the Assessing Officer made addition to Rs. 1,62,27,135/- to the total

Ayyanna Patrudu Geddam, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(5), Hyderabad

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

ITA 790/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 790/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ayyanna Patrudu Geddam Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 12(5) Pan:Arapg9043J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A K Abhiroop Bhargav राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rahul Singhania, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: C.A K Abhiroop BhargavFor Respondent: : Shri Rahul Singhania, DR
Section 69A

Account. The appellant has also received some other credits on few occasions and claimed that his father has gifted Rs.6.00 lakhs out of his agricultural income. Although the appellant could not explain the gift received from his father with credible evidence, but going by the evidence filed by the assessee

Pawan Kumar, Sonepat vs. ITO Ward-3, Sonipat

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2338/DEL/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2338/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2011-12) Pawan Kumar, Vpo, Khubru The Ganaur, District Sonepat, Haryana 131101 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Bdhpk-9705-M बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Sonepat ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Haryana अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 12/09/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As To 'The Cit(A)’) Dated 22.06.2023, For Ay 2011-12. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are; The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For Ay 2011-12 Declaring Income Of Rs. 1,15,600/- & Agricultural Income Of Rs. 4,95,700/-. The Assessment For Ay 2011-12 Was Reopened U/S. 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As To 'The Act’), On The Ground That The Assessee Has Made Cash Deposits Amounting To Rs. 21,90,000/- + Rs. 8,52,000/-In Savings Bank Account With Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Khubru

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

emanating from records are; the assessee filed his return of income for AY 2011-12 declaring income of Rs. 1,15,600/- and agricultural income of Rs. 4,95,700/-. The assessment for AY 2011-12 was reopened u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Muthusami Balasubramaniam, Tiruchengode vs. Ward 1, Tiruchengode

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1664/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील िं./Ita No.1664/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Muthusami Balasubramaniam, Income Tax Officer, No.34, Agraharam Street, Vs. Ward-1, Tiruchengode, Tiruchengode, Namakkal, Tiruchengode, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu-637 211. [Pan: Agcpb1728Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Assessee By : Shri Sricharan, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit ुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Sricharan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 250

Rs.27,38,921/-. As evident from the assessment order dated 29.12.2019, the appellant, claiming to be Doctor by profession and also earning rental and agricultural income, had filed return of income u/s142(1) declaring income of Rs.2,10,000/-. The Ld. AO completed the assessment after making certain additions

Ashok Singh Chauhan, Khurja vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1), Bulandshahr

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

ITA 1558/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Ashok Kumar Chauhan, Vs Ito, New Kila Road, Murari Nagar, Ward -3(1), Khurja, Bulandshahr, Bulandshahr. Uttar Pradesh-203131. Pan-Bhfpc1571B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shailendra Johri, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.09.2024

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69

Registry because the appellant had paid the consideration in parts to his sister Smt. Sharda Devi over past several years out of his agricultural income and out of sale proceeds of his previous sale of the agricultural land. It has been wrongly made addition as an unexplained investment

M/S. Vogue Fabrics, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Panipat

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2889/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahyash. Laliet Kumarita No. 2889/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Vogue Fabrics, Vs Dcit, C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Circle, Paipat, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, Panipat New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfv1872E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Yogesh Nair, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.09.2023

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Yogesh Nair, Sr. DR
Section 69A

agreement dated 01.04.2011 entered into by the assessee firm with Sh. Satpal Singh Kang. During the course of assessment proceeding, no question regarding the agricultural income was asked and all that was asked vide notice dated 04.03.2015 was about the total area of the land etc. as discussed in para ... speaking order vide para 6.2 of the appeal order. Even pattanama for AY 2009-10 and AY 2014-15 regarding similarly earned agricultural income are also enclosed as additional evidences (PB 873-878). Both the authorities have ignored the existence of agricultural land and agricultural income earned including in preceding

Chandrasekhar Yernena, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 125/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.125/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Chandrasekhar Yernena, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 39-31-68, Gandhi Nagar, Ward-4(1), Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam-530018, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Abqpy2029N (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri N.V. Ramana Murthy, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 10/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri N.V. Ramana Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

capital in the business; (ii) Rs. 10,00,000/- as funds received from family members out of their agricultural income and Rs. 5,00,000/- received from the assessee’s brother. On perusal of the assessee’s submissions and the evidences placed before him, the Ld. AO made addition ... ought to have treated the amount of Rs. 15, lakhs contributed by the appellant from his family funds mainly accumulated savings of agricultural income (Rs. 10.00 lakhs) and loan from his brother ie., Y. Raja Sekhar Rao (Rs. 5 lakhs) as unexplained investment