“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

Praveen Halagappa Mariyappa(HUF), Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivamogga

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

ITA 1394/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Shree Raksha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 20.3.2018 admitting income of Rs.24,37,180 and agricultural income of Rs.65,59,322. The case was selected for scrutiny to verify large agricultural income. The assessee was asked to Page ... justify expenditure of agricultural operations, extent of land with supporting evidence, details of crops grown, gross agricultural income, bills, etc. In response the assessee filed reply on 17.5.2019 which is reproduced by the AO in his order. After verification of the reply, a proposal was sent to assessee vide letter

Alkaben Vinodchandra Matadar, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 65/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Cit(A). The Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming addition of Agriculture Income of Rs 4,54,105. 3. Your appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend all or any of the above grounds of appeal ... declaring total loss at Rs. -12,64,703/-. The intimation u/s. 143(1) was passed on 04-04-1999 and the agricultural income of Rs. 4,54,105/- was not considered as per the assessee’s submission. The loss for current year was also not considered to be carried forward

Ahsaan Qureshi, Nagpur vs. ACIT Circle-2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 323/NAG/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep JainFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 194HSection 201(1)Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40a

through Cheques from the FCI) and estimated the total expenses at ` 1,94,937, i.e., 40% of ` 4,87,343, and calculated the total agriculture income at ` 2,92,406, and added the balance amount of ` 5,68,322, to the total income of assessee as "Income from other sources ... learned CIT(A) allowed agricultural income to the extent of 90% of the total expenses claimed by the assessee i.e., ` 2,19,867. 5 Ahsaan Qureshi ITA no.323/Nag./2023 9. I have heard the rival arguments, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities

Shyamkumar Chandulal Sugandh, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Nagpur

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

ITA 303/NAG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A

26/11/2020, declaring net taxable income at ` 42,50,705, which includes income from house property, income from business and income from other sources and agricultural income at ` 2,09,937. The assessee earned commission @ 1% and for brokerage the assessee earned brokerage @ 1% only. In the return of income

Dasharath Madanlal Laddhad, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 301/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

authorities below. The fixed deposits were mostly made out of renewal of old deposits and no fresh funds were invested. There was agricultural income of ` 7,14,770, which was accepted during assessment proceedings to justify cash deposit of ` 2,64,000. Thus, nature and source of investment is adequately

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam vs. Y.Lourdu Reddy, Hyderabad

In the result, cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 328/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

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

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

deriving income from civil construction works and from other sources, filed his return of income admitting an income of Rs. 9,35,880/- besides agricultural income of Rs.1,85,000/- for the A.Y. 2007-08. Consequent to the search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act conducted ... notice, assessee filed a copy of return of income for the A.Y.2007-08 on 22.09.2010 declaring the total income at Rs.9,35,880/- besides agricultural income of Rs. 1,85,000/-. Subsequently, notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire were issued

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam vs. Y.Joji Reddy, Hyderabad

In the result, cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 327/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam vs. Y.Joji Reddy, Hyderabad

In the result, cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 326/VIZ/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

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

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam vs. Y.Joji Reddy, Hyderabad

In the result, cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 325/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

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

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

Sri Rangarao Nadipally, Karimnagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Karimnagar

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

ITA 516/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2014-15 Sri Rangarao Nadipally Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karimnagar Circle – 1 Karimnagar Pan : Acbpn3816E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M Prudhvi Raj Appeared For Shri D.Sashank, Ld.Ar Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Ld.Dr 05.09.2024 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri M Prudhvi Raj appeared for Shri D.Sashank, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Ld.DR

disputed by the department. 5. The NFAC erred in upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer to the extent of considering agricultural income as taxable income even though the appellant had sufficient agricultural land (dry & wet) and had been declaring such agricultural income year on year. 6. The NFAC

Rathinam Viswanathan, Trichy vs. ITO, Circle 1(1), Trichy

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

ITA 1639/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A)-NFAC in restricting the disallowance of the claim of agricultural income at Rs.38,10,400/- as against disallowance made by the AO at Rs.57,96,400/- and consequently, confirmed the addition under the head ‘income ... case. Brief facts are that the AO selected the assessee’s case for limited scrutiny to verify the following two issues:- i. Agricultural income ii. Details of Assets and Liabilities Accordingly, the AO called for the details of agricultural holding, documents relating to cultivation and sale of agricultural produce

Ishwar Chander Pahuja, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 19(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2560/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanishwar Chander Pahuja, Vs. Acit, Circle 19 (1), C/O Sumer Garg & Co., Cas New Delhi. E-501A, Itl Northex Tower, Plot No.A – 9, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. (Pan : Aafpp4275M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 Date Of Order : 06.09.2024 Order The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 21.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld. Ao Erred In Law & On Facts In Disallowing The Claim Of The Assessee Of Having Earned Agricultural Income At Rs.23,36,957/- & The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao Treating The Same As Bogus Without Making Any Verification In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 234ASection 44A

following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld. AO erred in law and on facts in disallowing the claim of the assessee of having earned agricultural income at Rs.23,36,957/- and the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming the action ... case. 5. Without prejudice to the above, The Ld. AO was not justified in law and on facts in disallowing whole of the agricultural income and the Ld. CIT(A), NF AC erred in law and on facts in confirming such action of Ld. AO while the assessee was required

Sunilkumar Narsinhbhai Patel, Sabarkantha vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Modasa

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

ITA 1100/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1100/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) िनधा"रण वष" Sunilkumar Narsinhbhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Patel Ward-1, Modasa, Gujarat Vs. Patel Fali, Old Bus Station Road, Vadagam – 383307, Sabarkantha District, Gujarat, 383307 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acxpp2738B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Chirag Raval, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. Dr 03/09/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 05/09/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 16.11.2023 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 130 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reason For Delay. It

For Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

brief facts of the case are that the return for A.Y. 2017- 18 was filed on 27.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs. Nil and agriculture income of Rs.23,35,817/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason “Large agricultural income shown in ITR and Large cash deposit ... Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) on 15.12.2019 at total income of Rs.23,35,817/-, which was in respect of agricultural income not considered genuine by the AO. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, which

Sivasankar Paidipati, Bhimavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhimavaram

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

ITA 300/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 300/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sivasankar Paidipati V. Income Tax Officer – Ward –1 Flat No. 303, 3Rd Floor Income Tax Office, J.P. Road Sri Rama Heights Sivaraopet, Bhimavaram Rayalam Bhimavaram, West Godavari Andhra Pradesh - 534204

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

Rs.2,50,000/- iv. Addition of unsecured loan under section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 7,00,000/-. v. Addition of agricultural income amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- Page No. 2 I.T.A. No. 300/VIZ/2024 Sivasankar Paidipati 3. On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before

Mothukuri Srinivasa Rao, Vijayawada vs. The Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 298/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 298/Viz/2024 (निर्धररवरध/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mothukuri Srinivasa Rao V. The Asst. Cit - Circle-2(1) D.No.54-28/1-48, Flat.No.305 C R Building, 1St Floor Annex Ridge Grandeuer Apartment M G Road, Krishna District Road.No.2, Commercial Taxes Colony Andhra Pradesh - 520002 Auto Nagar, Krishna District Andhra Pradesh - 520007 [Pan : Adppm5568D ] (अपीलार्/ Appellant) (प्र्/ Respondent) करद्त्क्पनतनिनरध/ Assessee Represented By : M.V. Prasad, Ar : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar र्जसक्पनतनिनरध/ Department Represented By सुिव्ईसम्पहोिेकीनतनि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोरर्कीत्रीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”]

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

Vaishnavi Commercial Corporation, filed his return of income for the A.Y.2016-17 on 17-10-2016 declaring total income of Rs.39,83,030/- and agricultural income of Rs. 19,14,000/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine whether sundry creditors are genuine and whether ... From the details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has introduced an amount of Rs.19,14,000/- as agricultural income in the new Page No. 2 I.T.A. No. 298/VIZ/2024 Mothukuri Srinivasa Rao capital introduced. Assessing Officer observed that assessee failed to furnish any proof

M/S. Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC - 3(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 571/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.571/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

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

that the Ld. AO while making computation of income has just added the loss as per P&L Account and has not considered the agricultural income earned by the appellant which is claimed to be exempt and Ld. AO erred in considering the same as taxable income. Further, we note

Sarangabani Kirubakaran, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 1242/CHNY/2023[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR

Section 153C

purpose for which the purchaser would use the land would be immaterial. It is also not necessary that the assessee should have earned agricultural income in earlier years so as to lay claim on this deduction. The receipt of agricultural income is immaterial. The fact that the land is situated

Sarangabani Kirubakaran, Chennai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1237/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1237/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Sarangabani Kirubakaran Dcit बनाम/ 17/6, First Pillayar Koil Street, Circle-1(2) Vs. Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bumpk-0892-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 13-09-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By The Ld. Ao U/S.153C R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 31- 03-2022. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition U/S 69 For Rs.8.04 Lacs & Rs.5 Lacs. The Assessee Is Also Aggrieved By Computation Of Long-Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of Rs.157.45 Lacs. 2. The Ld Ar Advanced Arguments On Merits As Well As On Legal Grounds & Also Raised Additional Grounds Of Appeal. The Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR

Section 153CSection 69

assessee. However, Ld. AO held that that general classification of land would not prove that the said land was used for agricultural purposes and agricultural income was earned from this land. 3.3 In para-9, Ld. AO observed that the land was situated within 8 Kilometres from Chennai City Corporation ... purpose for which the purchaser would use the land would be immaterial. It is also not necessary that the assessee should have earned agricultural income in earlier years so as to lay claim on this deduction. The receipt of agricultural income is immaterial. The fact that the land is situated

Pradeep Kumar, Kullu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Kullu

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 72/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri A.D.Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR

Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has further erred in upholding the disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 1,61,52,100/-incurred for earning agricultural income of Rs. 1,94,50,000/- resulting in declared net agricultural income of Rs. 32,97,900/- which is arbitrary and unjustified. 4. That

Karuppusamy Thangavelu, Coimbatoree vs. ACIT, Ncc-4, Coimbatore

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1677/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1677/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Karuppasamy Thangavelu Acit बनाम/ 22/A, Siruvani Main Road, Non-Corporate Circle-4, Vs. Madampatti, Coimbatore-641 010. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Afspt-3975-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Girish Kumar (Advocate) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Samuel Pitta (Jcit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta (JCIT) -Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69A

Lacs u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE which represent cash deposits during demonetization period from 09-11-2016 to 30-12-2016 in various bank accounts. The agricultural income was also disallowed and considered as ‘income from other sources’. The assessee failed to furnish the requisite details during assessment proceedings