← 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

D S R Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 51/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

cooperative bank etc. As per the second proviso, this provision would also not be applicable where both the depositor and the receiver are having agricultural income and neither of them has any income chargeable to tax under the Act. 18. Section 271D of the Act deals with penalty for failure

DCIT., Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Dsr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 50/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

cooperative bank etc. As per the second proviso, this provision would also not be applicable where both the depositor and the receiver are having agricultural income and neither of them has any income chargeable to tax under the Act. 18. Section 271D of the Act deals with penalty for failure

D S R Infrastructureprivate Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle- 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 49/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

cooperative bank etc. As per the second proviso, this provision would also not be applicable where both the depositor and the receiver are having agricultural income and neither of them has any income chargeable to tax under the Act. 18. Section 271D of the Act deals with penalty for failure

Ramesh Chandra Verma, Sundrel vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhar

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 312/IND/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Aug 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Ramesh Chandra Verma, Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3, Village Sundrel, Dhar बनाम/ Tehsil - Dharampuri Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Afqpv9932H Assessee By Shri Lucky Singhal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

Section 144Section 69

treating the deposits made in assessee’s bank a/cs as unexplained. He submitted that the assessee had sufficient agricultural income and also there were withdrawals from bank a/c which were available for making deposits/re-deposits in bank a/c. He submitted that the assessee has filed additional evidences in Paper-Book

Late Sudha Mishra ( Through Legal Heir Sh. Nishant Mishra), Bhopal vs. ITO, 5(2), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 108/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Late Sudha Mishra Income-Tax Officer, (Through Legal Heir 5(2), Shri Nishant Mishra), Bhopal बनाम/ A-19, Minal Residency, Vs. J.K. Road, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Bxzpm5593B Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Ar. Revenue By Shri K.Bala Murli Krishna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69A

assessee is a lady who carried the business of boutique jobs for about 25 years and the assessee also had agricultural income. Therefore, the assessee accumulated savings in cash and had to deposit in bank a/c due to declaration of demonetization. The assessee made these submissions to AO in initial

Lovekesh Patil, Burhanpur vs. CIT Appeals, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 316/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Lovekesh Patil, Ito, House No. 204/1, Burhanpur बनाम/ Village - Turak Gurada, Vs. District – Burhanpur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Dhnpp1752B Assessee By Assessee In Person Revenue By Shri K.Bala Murli Krishna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Burhanpur has erred in considering returned income as cover up for cash deposit during demonetization. Cash deposit during demonetization is explained by assessee from agriculture income and cash withdrawals from bank. It has no connection with the returned income of assessment year 2015-16. 3. That application of section 115BBE ... there was no need of protective assessment during the relevant assessment year. 5. That the Ld. ITO Burhanpur has erred in making addition of agricultural income of Rs. 3,39,966/- as non agriculture income is below taxable limit, addition on addition on account of agriculture income is wrong

Singarayan Bharathi Florance Jasmine, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw 5(2), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1399/CHNY/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1399/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-2009) Singarayan Bharathi Florance Jasmine, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.16/177A, Marapalam Madukkarai, Non Corporate Ward 5(2) Coimbatore 641 105. Coimbatore [Pan: Aagpf 2956C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 263Section 40A(3)

Income for AY 2008-09 filed declaring income at Rs.2,47,112/-. 31.03.2015 Case reopened u/s 148 of the Act for the reason of agricultural income escapement. 22.12.2015 Assessee filed return of income in response to section 148 notice declaring income at Rs.2,92,300/-. 30.03.2016 Assessment order

Amrinder Singh Village Uksi Jattan, Post Office Basantpura, Tehsil Rajpura District Patiala, Punjab vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward, Punjab

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

ITA 303/CHANDI/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Aug 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). 3. Notwithstanding The Above Said Grounds Of Appeal, The Confirmation Of Addition As Made By The Ld. Ao To The Tune Of Rs. 25,00,000/- & Agricultural Income Of Rs. 2,66,800/- Is Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 4. That The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Reopening Of The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & There Was No Reason To Believe & Also There Has Been Mechanical Satisfaction Of The Ld. Pcit & As Such The Assessment As Reopened Deserves To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Danish Abdullah, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 147

above said grounds of appeal, the confirmation of addition as made by the Ld. AO to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/- & agricultural income of Rs. 2,66,800/- is against the facts & circumstances of the case. 4. That the Ld. AO has erred in reopening of the assessment

Syed Ariff, Tumkur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Tumkur

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

ITA 1303/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Khamruddin Syed, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 144

return of income. Thereafter, another notice was issued to which he filed his objections and explained that the cash deposits are nothing but the agricultural incomes. Therefore, the AO had made the assessment u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) by treating the deposits

Kyalasanahalli Narayanappa Subramani, Cno Kothanur Post vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(1) Bengaluru, Koramangala

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

ITA 1256/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234ASection 246ASection 271Section 274Section 68

ground that the appeal was time barred. The ld. A.R. further stated that the assessee is having a good case on merits since the agricultural income earned by the assessee was shown in the return and therefore, he contended that further additions made u/s 68 of the Act is unwarranted

DCIT Central Circle- 30, New Delhi vs. Dhruva Goel, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue and assessee are dismissed

ITA 1648/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Dr B.R.R Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit Central Vs Dhruva Goel Circle – 30 K-69, Hauz Khas New Delhi Enclave, New Delhi Pan No. Aazpg0330Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dhruva Goel Vs Dcit Central K-69, Hauz Khas Enclave, Circle – 30 New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aazpg0330Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Smt Sapana Bhatia Cit-Dr Respondent By Sh. Prateek Mittal Ca

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 69

past savings accumulated out of income already offered to tax in earlier years as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act. The Appellant earned agriculture income of Rs.6,00,000/-during the year and Rs.3,00,000/- was out of past savings. The action of Ld. AO as well ... income from agriculture in the ITR whereas he has submitted in the assessment proceedings that he has earned Rs.6,00,000/- as agricultural income and the same has also been reiterated in the appellate proceedings also. The appellant failed to produce any explanation or receipt in support of his contention

Dhruva Goel, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue and assessee are dismissed

ITA 1604/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Dr B.R.R Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit Central Vs Dhruva Goel Circle – 30 K-69, Hauz Khas New Delhi Enclave, New Delhi Pan No. Aazpg0330Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dhruva Goel Vs Dcit Central K-69, Hauz Khas Enclave, Circle – 30 New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aazpg0330Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Smt Sapana Bhatia Cit-Dr Respondent By Sh. Prateek Mittal Ca

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 69

past savings accumulated out of income already offered to tax in earlier years as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act. The Appellant earned agriculture income of Rs.6,00,000/-during the year and Rs.3,00,000/- was out of past savings. The action of Ld. AO as well ... income from agriculture in the ITR whereas he has submitted in the assessment proceedings that he has earned Rs.6,00,000/- as agricultural income and the same has also been reiterated in the appellate proceedings also. The appellant failed to produce any explanation or receipt in support of his contention

Jasbinder Singh, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward-4, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as in-fructuous

ITA 2069/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Jasbinder SinghFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 44ASection 69

assessee declared total income of Rs.1,18,313/- u/s 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and filed return of income declaring further agricultural income of Rs.9,60,000/-. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of purported advance received from M/s Yograj Infra Ltd. owing ... amount of Rs.9,60,000/- declared as income from agricultural. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition made on account of agricultural income of Rs.5,65,200/- and confirmed the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- made by the AO. We find that the addition has been made

DCIT, Circle, Patiala vs. M/S Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala

In the result, ground no. 1 & 3 of the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and ground no

ITA 737/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)

from the principal amount should be applied in the relevant context only and is not universally applicable. Consider the case of an assessee having agricultural income alone. If some amount out of such, otherwise exempt income, is utilized in purchasing FDRs in a bank, the interest on such income shall ... chargeable to tax under the Act and not become agricultural income simply on the ground that the exempt income was used for the purchase of FDRs. For any receipt to become agricultural income, it need to satisfy the conditions as laid down in section 2(1A). It is only

Hirenkumar Lavjibhai Kanani, Ahmedabad vs. PCIT, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 522/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

with supporting documentary evidences placed on records such as copies of 7/12 and 8Aevidencing the agricultural land holdings, comparative return of income evidencing the agricultural income in previous and subsequent years to substantiate the claim of agriculture income and the subsequent cash deposits made in the Bank of Baroda Account ... year under consideration merely because the invoices for the agriculture income were not made available, the revisionary proceedings were initiated which is bad in law. 15. The order passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad under section263 of the Income Tax Act dated

Vanisri Ambati, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 736/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Advocate A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: : Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, DR
Section 115BSection 68

assessee filed her return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 31.5.2017 declaring total income of Rs.10,45,810/- and a net agricultural income of Rs.80,000/- for rate purposes. The case was selected for scrutiny under “limited scrutiny category” to examine the cash deposits made during the demonetization

Cheyur Ramakrishnan, Chennai vs. ITO, Business Ward - 2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 334/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2024. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-2008) Cheyur Ramakrishnan Rajkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7/4, Meenakshi P.S Business Ward Ii(3) Sivasamy Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Accpr 4434P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Subramanian, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. R. Subramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 54B

assesse had sold lands measuring 41.7 acres of land situated at THIRUVATGHOOR village Cheyyur Taluk. Whereas the assessee had not offered any agricultural income for the Assessment year 2007-2008 and earlier years. Whereas the above said lands was claimed as agricultural lands and capital gain exemption was claimed. "Since ... agricultural income was not offered there was every reason to believe the income chargeable to tax had escaped from the assessment under the head of capital, and the assessment was reopened under-section-147 of the Act 1961’’. The ld. Assessing Officer on merits treated the sale of land

Krishnamoorthy, Erode vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Erode

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

ITA 908/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.908/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-2017)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri R. Mukundan, IRS, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

agriculturalist having residence at main street, Arikkarankattur, Vellotamparapu, Erode TK. He has filed IT e return shown an income of Rs 2,72.510/- and agricultural income of Rs. 37,78,483/- for the AY 2016-17. This case was taken for IT scrutiny u/s 143 (2) of the Act issued ... served upon the appellant. In response, the appellant submitted the details and it was seen that on examination of details, the appellant claimed huge agricultural income, made cash deposits on various dates. A show cause notice was issued and served upon the appellant. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment

Nirvin Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata

ITA 557/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.557/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Nirvin Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd….………………… ........................……Appellant 1St Floor Suit No.5, Onkara Chambers, 30 Bentick Street, Near Lal Bazar, Kolkata -1. [Pan: Aabcn1213E] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata.................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 26, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Disposing Of The Appeal On Merits Ex-Parte Without Affording Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. (A) For That On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Confirming The A0'S Action Of Making Addition Of

Section 10(1)Section 145(3)Section 250

erred in confirming the AO's action for denying the benefit of exemption claimed u/s 10(1) of the Act in relation to the agricultural income of Rs.27,97,000/- derived during the year. 5. For that the appellant craves leave to submit additional grounds and/or amend or alter ... agitated the 17. action of the Assessing Officer in denying the benefit of exemption claimed u/s 10 of the Act in relation to agricultural income of Rs.27,97,000/-. 18. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had shown aggregate income of Rs.27,97,000/-. He treated the said amount

Jisho Joseph V Mathew, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 116/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Mr. Tony C. KallukalamFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 250

sources such as gold loan, chitty proceeds sale proceeds of a property, withdrawals from NRO/NRE accounts of relatives (as gift from relatives) and some agricultural income. She has arranged the money for her own brother Joseph who is working in UK for the purchase of a house property