← 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

Santhimadam Agrofarm Trust, Kochi vs. The ACIT Central Circle 2, Kochi

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

ITA 221/COCH/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

without appreciating the fact that the appellant is engaged in growing and sale of herbal plants and that the income derived is agricultural income which shall not include total by virtue of section 10(1). He ought to have appreciated that this claim was made in the return filed

Santhimadam Agrofarm Trust, Kochi vs. The ACIT Central Circle 2, Kochi

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

ITA 220/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

without appreciating the fact that the appellant is engaged in growing and sale of herbal plants and that the income derived is agricultural income which shall not include total by virtue of section 10(1). He ought to have appreciated that this claim was made in the return filed

Rajendra Kumar Patidar, C/O. Ca. Rajesh Heeralal Mehta vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Irrigation Colony

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 505/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Indore06 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manish Boradshri Rajendra Kumar Patidar, Income Tax Officer, 203, Manas Bhawan Extn, Shajapur 11, Rnt Marg, Vs. Near Hotel Shreemaya, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aqlpp9145L Assessee By S/Shri Apurva Mehta & Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2024 O R D E R

Section 144Section 148

treating the same as unaccounted income without considering that the assessee is a Kisan (Agriculturist) and the cash is deposited out of agricultural income and there is no unaccounted income of the assessee 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... documentary evidences furnished by the assessee before the 1.d. CIT(A) in the form of additional evidences to substantiate the claim of agricultural income earned by the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Mr. Shankaramurthy C, Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davangere

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 680/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. ShreeRaksha, D, Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. Page 2 of 5 5,83,750 being 25% of the expenses incurred towards agricultural income on the ground that no evidences were produced for such expenses. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts ... along with agricultural land holdings, bank statements and other details. On verification of return of income, it was noticed that assessee had declared gross agricultural income of Rs.1,06,08,013 and after reducing expenses of Rs.23,35,000 to one of the above agricultural Page 3 of 5 receipts

Piaggio Vehicles Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 611/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Smt. Deepa Sanjay Hiray
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

hence, taxable) and not on the balance 60% of the income (because that income was attributable to the agricultural activities, and hence, regarded as "agricultural income" beyond the purview of the Act). The Revenue challenged this decision before the Hon'ble SC. The Hon'ble SC noted that ... dividend is included in ‘income’ and is thus covered by Entry 82 of List I to Seventh Schedule, “taxes on income, other than agricultural income”. The argument on behalf of the assessee was that in “pith and substance” DDT was a tax on Agricultural income, which was rejected

Karakurappa, Chikkaballapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 1, Chikkaballapur

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

ITA 986/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Koushik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)(e)Section 249(3)Section 250

facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) as well as authorities below erred in disallowing Rs. 21,20,020 being agricultural income claimed by the appellant. 7. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the appellant ... stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 01.11.2017 declaring an income of Rs.11,25,657 and agricultural income of Rs.21,02,020/- and same was processed u/s. 143(1) on 25.05.2018. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices issued

Suhas Maruti Dhankude, Pune vs. JCIT (OSD)- Central Circle 2(4), Pune

Appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in above terms

ITA 1061/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr UK Chavan [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 127(1)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

towards unexplained (a) cheque return, bank deposit etc. (b) purchase of jewellery; u/s 69 towards explained investment in land and unaccounted rent, agricultural income etc. 4.3 Aggrieved assessee filed separate appeals which came dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) by a consolidated order passed u/s 250 of the Act wherein ... Suhas Maruti Dhankude Vs JCIT(OSD)ACIT ITA No.1055 to 1056 & 1060 to1061/PUN/2024 unexplained investment in land (c) undisclosed shop rent (d) unexplained/unsubstantiated agricultural income (e) unexplained expenditure (f) unexplained cash found at the searched premises etc. 5.2 Against these assessments too the assessee filed separate appeals which also came

Suhas Maruti Dhankude, Pune vs. JCIT-(OSD)- Central Circle 2(4), Pune

Appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in above terms

ITA 1060/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr UK Chavan [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 127(1)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

towards unexplained (a) cheque return, bank deposit etc. (b) purchase of jewellery; u/s 69 towards explained investment in land and unaccounted rent, agricultural income etc. 4.3 Aggrieved assessee filed separate appeals which came dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) by a consolidated order passed u/s 250 of the Act wherein ... Suhas Maruti Dhankude Vs JCIT(OSD)ACIT ITA No.1055 to 1056 & 1060 to1061/PUN/2024 unexplained investment in land (c) undisclosed shop rent (d) unexplained/unsubstantiated agricultural income (e) unexplained expenditure (f) unexplained cash found at the searched premises etc. 5.2 Against these assessments too the assessee filed separate appeals which also came

Suhas Maruti Dhankude, Pune vs. JCIT (OSD)- Central Circle 2(4) Pune, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in above terms

ITA 1056/PUN/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr UK Chavan [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 127(1)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

towards unexplained (a) cheque return, bank deposit etc. (b) purchase of jewellery; u/s 69 towards explained investment in land and unaccounted rent, agricultural income etc. 4.3 Aggrieved assessee filed separate appeals which came dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) by a consolidated order passed u/s 250 of the Act wherein ... Suhas Maruti Dhankude Vs JCIT(OSD)ACIT ITA No.1055 to 1056 & 1060 to1061/PUN/2024 unexplained investment in land (c) undisclosed shop rent (d) unexplained/unsubstantiated agricultural income (e) unexplained expenditure (f) unexplained cash found at the searched premises etc. 5.2 Against these assessments too the assessee filed separate appeals which also came

Suhas Maruti Dhankude, Pune vs. JCIT (OSD)- Central Circle 2(4) Pune, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in above terms

ITA 1055/PUN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr UK Chavan [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 127(1)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

towards unexplained (a) cheque return, bank deposit etc. (b) purchase of jewellery; u/s 69 towards explained investment in land and unaccounted rent, agricultural income etc. 4.3 Aggrieved assessee filed separate appeals which came dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) by a consolidated order passed u/s 250 of the Act wherein ... Suhas Maruti Dhankude Vs JCIT(OSD)ACIT ITA No.1055 to 1056 & 1060 to1061/PUN/2024 unexplained investment in land (c) undisclosed shop rent (d) unexplained/unsubstantiated agricultural income (e) unexplained expenditure (f) unexplained cash found at the searched premises etc. 5.2 Against these assessments too the assessee filed separate appeals which also came

Sri. Ganesh Vasudeva Shet, Shivamogga vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivamogga

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

ITA 1105/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 234

circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 9,29,559/- out of agricultural income based on the remand report of the learned A.O. without appreciating that no addition could be made with reference to the said extent of agricultural ... under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[A] is further not justified in holding that agricultural income to the extent of Rs. 13,58,740/- has to be disallowed on account of estimation of agricultural expenses at 25% of the agricultural

Amol Chimanrao Patil, Jalgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Wrd-2(3), Jalgaon

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 325/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

depreciation expenses on newly purchased asset. 4. The Ld (IT (A) has erred in confirming the view of the Ld AO to treat the agricultural income declared in Income Tax Return of Rs.5,68,157/- as taxable income of the appellant without considering the facts of the case ... comes both the lower authority’s action(s) inter alia making various disallowances/addition(s) representing varying sums of low gross profits after estimation, depreciation, agricultural income and that u/s. 69A; as the case may be. 4. Mr. Murkunde vehemently argued during the course of hearing that the assessee has neither

Kammela Srinivasara Rao, Tenali vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 73/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.73/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Kammela Srinivasara Rao, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, D.No. 7-14-9, Harikrishna Ward-1, Medical Agencies, Battavari Tenali. Street, Ganganammapet, Tenali, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Akzpk3519M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 31/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 208Section 234B(1)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271ASection 69A

filed by the assessee was for the AY 2013-14 for which the assessee has admitted total income of Rs. 2,46,000/- and agricultural income of Rs. 80,000/-. Before the Ld. AO, the assessee made various submissions with regard to the cash deposits. On perusal of the submissions

M G Gopal, Vijayawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 270/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.270/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) M.G. Gopal, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Vijayawada. Income Tax, Pan: Afwpm6317H Circle-2(1), Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Ma Rahim, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 31/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri MA Rahim, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

filed his return of income for the AY 2018-19 on 04/10/2018 declaring a total income of Rs. 38,58,050/- and agricultural income of Rs. 1,65,91,420/-. Initially, the return was processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS ... 44AE of the Act. Further, the Ld. AO, in the absence of any documentary evidence in respect of the agricultural income, the assessee’s claim of agricultural income of Rs. 1,67,07,620/- was added back to the total income of the assessee. Furthermore, the Ld. AO also rejected

Shri Abhay Dare, Bhopal vs. The ITO 1(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 832/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Abhay Dare Ito-1(1) R-18, Gtb Complex Bhopal New Market, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adqpd5119C Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2024

Section 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80I

permission of Honourable Bench.” 3. The assesse filed his return of income on 23rd September 2009 declaring total income of Rs.3,70,010/- and agricultural income at Rs.2,68,749/- after claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act to the tune of Rs.67,30,612/-. In the scrutiny assessment

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1646/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

order of the Assessing Officer on account of long term capital gains ignoring the distinction between assessment of capital gains and assessment of agricultural income in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 13. The Assessing Officer, on receipt of information from ... Tahsildar and submits that the disputed lands are classified as agricultural lands in the Revenue Records. Further, he submits that the earning of agricultural income is not a statutorily prescribed condition to determine the character of the land. The ld. AR challenged that the lower authorities went wrong in imposing

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1625/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

order of the Assessing Officer on account of long term capital gains ignoring the distinction between assessment of capital gains and assessment of agricultural income in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 13. The Assessing Officer, on receipt of information from ... Tahsildar and submits that the disputed lands are classified as agricultural lands in the Revenue Records. Further, he submits that the earning of agricultural income is not a statutorily prescribed condition to determine the character of the land. The ld. AR challenged that the lower authorities went wrong in imposing

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1624/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

order of the Assessing Officer on account of long term capital gains ignoring the distinction between assessment of capital gains and assessment of agricultural income in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 13. The Assessing Officer, on receipt of information from ... Tahsildar and submits that the disputed lands are classified as agricultural lands in the Revenue Records. Further, he submits that the earning of agricultural income is not a statutorily prescribed condition to determine the character of the land. The ld. AR challenged that the lower authorities went wrong in imposing

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1623/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

order of the Assessing Officer on account of long term capital gains ignoring the distinction between assessment of capital gains and assessment of agricultural income in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 13. The Assessing Officer, on receipt of information from ... Tahsildar and submits that the disputed lands are classified as agricultural lands in the Revenue Records. Further, he submits that the earning of agricultural income is not a statutorily prescribed condition to determine the character of the land. The ld. AR challenged that the lower authorities went wrong in imposing

Premila Dinsha Patel, Vadodara vs. ITO Ward 1(3)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 301/AHD/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year :2012-13 Premila Dinsha Patel Ito, Ward-1(3)(1) 49/B, Indrapuri Society Vs Vadodara. Nr. Sangam Char Rasta Harni Road, Vadodara Pan : Aprpp 9913 R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar : Shri Hrishikesh Hemant Patki, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, AR
Section 234ASection 250

same be deleted now. 2. a) The Learned C1T(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the cash deposits were made out of agriculture income carried by the appellant on the land owned by the appellant's husband by carrying out agriculture activities by the appellant, not only during ... family of agriculturists and all income earned by the assessee family, therefore, was primarily out of the agriculture activities. That, part of the agricultural income was deposited in her bank account in cash. The ld.counsel for the assessee pointed out that entire details of the land