“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

Vyjayanthi Mudapaka, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 557/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Advocate S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri B Naveen Kumar, DR

Section 10(1)Section 147

assessment year 2016-17, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. Assessee filed her return of income for the Assessment Year 2016- 17 declaring Net Agricultural income at Rs. 6,38,241/- and business income of Rs. 2,11,100/-. As per the informa"on available to the learned Assessing Officer ... stage of Banana Plants were derived from Tissue Culture. The issue involved was to verify whether the claim of the assessee regarding the agriculture income is correct or not. Since the ini"al stage of Banana Plants is grown in chemicals and without basic agricultural opera"ons in soil, according

Grr Holdings, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 195/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : N O N E

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 263Section 69A

shown to be not fictitious, the burden would shift on the Revenue. 32. In the case at hand, the partners have shown the agricultural income in their personal returns of the past years which had been accepted by the department as such. The partners are all identifiable and separately assessed

Grr Holdings, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 194/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : N O N E

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 263Section 69A

Grr Holdings, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 164/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : N O N E

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 263Section 69A

Andhra Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 664/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Suresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR) &

Section 23Section 3

prior case law and academic works. These conditions were derived from English and Scottish Joint Co- operative Wholesale Society Ltd. v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income- Tax, Assam (AIR 1948 PC 142) and reaffirmed in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City v. Royal Western India Turf Club

Andhra Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 663/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Suresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR) &

Section 23Section 3

Andhra Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 662/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Suresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR) &

Section 23Section 3

Venkatachalam Dhandapani, Chennai vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Tiruppur

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

ITA 1426/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1426/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Venkatchalam Dhandapani, Income Tax Officer, C/O Dr. Rajesh, V. Ward -2(4), Flat No. 17/6A, Shanmuganar Salai, Tiruppur. Flat No.3, First Floor, Gill Nagar (Near Sriram Auto Mechanic Shop), Choolaimedu, Chennai – 600 094. [Pan: Akhpd-9620-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Aron Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Aron Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

1426/Chny/2024 2. The brief facts are that, the assessee is an individual and in earlier years deriving income from house property, agricultural income and income from other sources. The assessee has not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 as the income was below taxable/nil ... 1426/Chny/2024 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, stated that the assessee is an individual deriving income from house property, agricultural income and income from other sources. The assessee is an agriculturalist hailing from small town and has saved his past years earnings in cash and deposited the same into

Bhargav Thommandru, Kurnool vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Kurnool

In the result, appeal is allowed in part

ITA 33/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 33/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Bhargav Thommandru Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kurnool Ward-1, [Pan No.Agnpt7218C] Kurnool अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Aravindakshan, Dr

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aravindakshan, DR

contra, learned DR placed reliance on the orders of the authori"es and submi"ed that there is no evidence to show the agricultural income and also any withdrawals from the accounts of these persons and therefore, the gi"s are highly suspicious. 5. I have gone through the record

Ramabhai Dhudabhai Patel, Deesa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palanpur

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

ITA 1054/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1054/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) िनधा"रण वष" Ramabhai Dhudabhai Income Tax Officer बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Patel Ward – 1, Vs. Vardhman Complex, B/H. Palanpur Bhanshali Trust, College Road, Deesa, Banaskantha, Gujarat, 385535 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Apkpp2715C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Manthan Khokhani, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2024 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 (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 17.10.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That No Return Of Income For A.Y. 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee. It Transpired That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Of Rs.19,29,021/- In Rbl Bank Ltd., Deesa Branch, Deesa During The Demonetization Period. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny As Operation Clean Money (‘Omc’)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 234Section 69A

relief only on the basis of bills, the AO should have examined the total land holding of the assessee and thereafter worked out the agriculture income as derived therefrom. Be that as it may, the assessee had contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that the cash deposits during demonetization period ... which ultimately did not materialize. This apart, the AO may also verify the total land holding of the assessee and work out how much agricultural income would have been derived by the assessee. The AO should take a holistic view of the matter and the credit for cash available with

Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 636/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka (CIT)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

incurred on funds borrowed for investment of Rs.1,42,84,360/- in agriculture land without appreciating that the assessee had not earned any exempt agriculture income during the year under consideration, the agriculture land was purchased in AY 2012-13 and 2014-15 and no material is brought on record ... must in other spheres of human activity." 3. It is further submitted that during the year under consideration assessee has not earned any agricultural income. It is a settled law that provisions of section 14A would not be applicable if no exempt income was received during relevant PY. For this

Smt. Bhargavi Gopinath, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1170/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 69

ITA No. 1170/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(2)(3), Bangalore. RESPONDENT Smt. Bhargavi

Prabhakar Jadi, Hyderbad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed in part

ITA 620/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Advocate T Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Shri Aravindakshan, DR

Section 142(1)

Officer estimated the income of 30% thereon and made an addition of ₹ 93, 110/-. Further, the learned Assessing Officer noted in respect of the agricultural income of ₹ 5, 85, 000/-that the documents furnished by the assessee to prove the agricultural income do not belong to the assessee and they ... support the Page 2 of 4 estimated 5% the learned Assessing Officer did not bring on record any evidence. In respect of agricultural income also the Ld. AR submitted that due to the fear of crystallising rights in favour of tenants though the assessee is agricultural income the documents

DCIT Central, Bhopal vs. Sharad Sharma, Bhopal

ITA 309/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 29/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2010-11) It(Ss)A No. 32/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2015-16) Shri Sharad Sharma, Acit, Central, बनाम/ H-3B, Nishant Colony, Gwalior Vs. 74 Bunglows, (Stationed At Bhopal) Tt Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Amzps9791D) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Finding it difficult to distribute the amount the officers went to the extent of declaring income in the hands of HUFs who had only agricultural income and did not even have PAN; the Officers could not even keep track of the volume of disclosure and the possibility of having such

DCIT Central, Bhopal vs. Sharad Sharma, Bhopal

ITA 304/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Ramaswamy Jeevanlatha, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corp Circle 2, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1204/CHNY/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1204/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ramaswamy Jeevanlatha, The Dy. Commissioner Of New No.31 (Old No.10-Z), Bharathi Vs. Income Tax, Park, Vii Cross, Corporate Circle-2, Saibaba Colony, Coimbatore Coimbatore – 641 011. [Pan: Adxpj 0081G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथF की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.Ramachandran, Fca HiथF की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri G.Suresh, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] Dated 28.02.2024 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 144 Of The Act Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) On 24.12.2019. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri S.Ramachandran, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Suresh, JCIT

Section 144Section 68Section 69A

Vijayalakshmi Paper Mills and M/s. Sri Lakshmi Engineering Works. She has filed her return of income on 28.03.2018 declaring at Nil income and agricultural income of Rs.20,50,831/-. The A.O has passed ex-parte order u/s. 144 of the Act making the addition on increase in capital ... Rs.1,62,97,648/-, Agriculture income u/s. 68 and 115BBE of the Act at Rs. 20,50,831/- and unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act at Rs.15,10,000/-. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition by passing ex-parte order

Rajesh Products, Tonk, Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Jaipur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 626/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Jain, CA (Th. V.C)For Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnu, (CIT-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessee failed to produce books of account which may have been maintained during regular course of business or any other authentic contemporaneous evidence of agricultural income. In the circumstances, the statement of the assessee could certainly be acted upon. 7. As regards the judgments in Pullangode Rubber Pruduce

I.T.O. Ward -1, Amravati vs. Shri Sanjay Nanasaheb Bharsakale, Amravati

In the result, the appeal of the department is rejected

ITA 81/NAG/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jul 2024AY 2011-2012

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Moriyani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y.Marathe, Sr.Dr

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 269TSection 44ASection 68

account of the assessee. 2. The findings recorded by the CIT (Appeals) in para 5.5.3 that the creditors are agriculturists having substantial agricultural income is perverse on the facts. 3. The findings recorded by the CIT (Appeals) in para 5.5.5(b) that these agriculturists believed in cash transactions is perverse ... Perusal of the evidences filed in the paper book indicates that the persons who have given money to the appellant are agriculturists having substantial agricultural income. The appellant remitted the aforesaid amounts in the account of Shri Rajesh S. Hiwase with Bank of India by way of RTGS towards booking

Brijeshkumar Jayantibhai Patel, Anand vs. The Income Tax Office, Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad

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

ITA 18/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench , Ahmedabad For Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Appellate Order Dated 7Th November, 2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Shri Vinit Mundra, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

assessee filed second appeal with the Tribunal , and the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a farmer having only agricultural income which is not taxable. The assessee is not maintaining any books of account from its farming activities. It was submitted that section 69A was wrongly ... also claimed that computation of income is filed at page 23, and the taxable income of the assessee is Nil , as the assessee has agricultural income. The ld. counsel had pleaded that section 69A has no applicability in the instant case as the assessee is not maintaining books of accounts

Mafaji Umedaji Jat, Deesa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 940/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.940/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Mafaji Umedaji Jat The Income Tax Officer At Rampura बनाम/ Ward-1 Po Rampura, Tal.Deesa Palanpur 385 001 V/S. Banaskantha – 385 535 Dist. Banaskantha (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Akipj 4846 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ….. ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 29/09/2023 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 147 R.W.S.144 Read With Mafaji Umedaji Jat Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR

Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

cash withdrawal from bank, Sale of Milk, sale of Potatoes Mafaji Umedaji Jat vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 3 and accumulated savings from agricultural income. About an unsecured loan of Rs. 10,01,843/-, he explained that the firm is giving loans to farmers against the stock which