“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

Krutika Ashwin Sarvaiya, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 43/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

invoice without establishing the same against the assessee. The A.O. rejected the contention of the assessee , and observed that the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs. 8,40,900/-. The assessee has furnished copy of sale bills amounting to Rs. 8,40,900/- from J B & Sons at Near ... page 6 and 7. The A.O. further observed that the assessee has explained source of cash deposit of Rs. 20 lacs by way of agricultural income as under: F.Y. Amount Remarks 2016-17 4,89,500/- Total Agriculture income during the year

Tarun Santramdas Varma, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 852/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.852/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Tarun Santramdas Varma The Asst.Cit बनाम/ 307-308, Sarthik Square Circle 4 (1)(1) Nr. New Us Pizz, Ahmedabad V/S. Sg Highway Ahmedabad – 380 054 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaipv 6427 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Parimal Sinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 29-8-2023 Pertaining To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Arising From The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Tarun Satramdas Varma Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Parimal Sinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR

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

declaring a total income of Rs.3,30,16,670/- under the heads of salary, house property, capital gain, other sources, and agricultural income. As the assessee was not carrying on any business, no books of accounts were maintained. 2.1. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny ... prove the source of cash deposited and explained the nature of the transactions to the Assessing Officer (AO). The cash deposits were primarily from agricultural income receipts and amounts received as advance per the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered with various persons who are agriculturists in the area

Abhay Singh, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhiwadi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 768/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 69A

assessee has filed condonation application mainly praying therein as under:- ‘’The assessee is an agriculturist and not having income other than bank interest and agriculture income. In this case the ld. CIT(A) huas passed the order on 15-02-2024 with a direction to the AO that ... During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assesee submitted that the assessee is an individual having interest income from bank and agricultural income. Since the assessee was not having taxable income for the year under consideration, therefore, no return of income was filed

Govind Sharan Rawat, Jaipur vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 590/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143Section 56

circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred law in confirming action of the AO in charging agricultural income of Rs.35,86,476/- out of declared total agricultural income of 2 SHRI GOVIND SHARAN RAWAT VS ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR Rs.67 ... facts of the present case, the assessee being an individual filed his return of income for the year under consideration declaring income which includes Agriculture Income. Initially the same was processed under section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act. But subsequently the case of the assessee was selected

J C Home Tex, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 7, Jaipur

ITA 292/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(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 Produce

Sri. A. S. Srinath (HUF), Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivamogga

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

ITA 228/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeya.S. Srinath (Huf) The Income Tax Officer No. 1, Mallikarjuna Nilaya Ward 1 & Tps 1St Cross, Hosamane Jail Road Vs. No.75, 100 Feet Road Shivamogga 577201 Gopal Gowda Exten. Pan – Aamha9965J Shivamoga 577201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / Cit(A) Dated 09.01.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/250/2023-24/1059510032(1) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Of The Authorities Below Is Against The Facts Of The Case & Passed On Assuming The Facts Which Are Unrealistic. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In The Provisions Of The Law, The Assessing Officer Erred In Estimating The Agricultural Expenditure At A Certain Percentage Of Agricultural Income Is Against The Fact, As The Increase In The Gross Receipts May Be For Various Reasons, Which Are Not Dependent On Agricultural Expenditure.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. CIT-DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250

case, and in the provisions of the law, the Assessing Officer erred in estimating the agricultural expenditure at a certain percentage of agricultural income is against the fact, as the increase in the gross receipts may be for various reasons, which are not dependent on agricultural expenditure. 2 A.S. Srinath ... sources as against the fact that in records of the department, there is no information that the Appellant is having income other than the agricultural income for deeming the income from other sources. 6. For these and other reasons which may be adduced at the time of the hearing, this

M/S. Labland Private Limited, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysuru

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

ITA 608/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeylabland Biotechs Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer #01, 8Th Km, Krs Road Ward - 1(1), Mysuru Vs. Metagalli, Mysuru 570016 Pan – Aaacl2892A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1062548837(1) Dated 13.03.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] / National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac For Short] Is Not Justified In Confirming The Assessment Of A Sum Of Rs.87,39,282/- As Income From Other Sources Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2.1 The Learned Cit[A]/Nfac Failed To Appreciate That The Income Derived By The Appellant Is From Agriculture Operations, Which Is Exempt U/S.10[1] Of The Act Read With Explanation Of Section 2[1] Of The Act & Consequently, The Learned Cit[A]/Nfac

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. CIT-DR

Section 10Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 250

income on 24.11.2017 declaring total income at Nil with a claim for credit for TDS amounting to Rs.10,788/- and claimed exemption of Agricultural Income to the extent of Rs.87,39,282/-. The assessee company claimed the sale of plants and seeds are in the nature of agricultural income ... accounts and the same were audited by a Chartered Accountant. The AO has 5 Labland Biotechs Pvt. Ltd. also accepted the source of agricultural income in the past and also brought to our attention to pages 31 to 38 of the paper book wherein the copy of the order

D S Doors (India) Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Faridabad

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

ITA 852/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshd. S. Doors (India) Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. Saubhagya Agarwal, Ward-1(2), K-185/14, Surya Plaza, 1St Faridabad Floor, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacd5805B

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in making enhancement of addition and further erred in reducing the agricultural income as accepted by Ld. AO by Rs.6,10,200/- (i.e. 30% of Rs.20,34,000/-) and that too on account of alleged adhoc expenditure incurred ... erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.20,05,514/- on account of agricultural income and that too without appreciating the specific request of the assessee for making independent enquiry in this regard. 5. That having regard to the facts

Ketan Arvindbhai Patel, Sojitra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Anand

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

ITA 269/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kedar Vyas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R

Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 144Section 250

incorrect. In reply to remand report we have given point by point rebuttal of AO contentions and have also given information that our Gross agriculture Income is Rs.562564, Net Agriculture Income is Rs.343180 and income from other sources is Rs. 183373 (174850 Misc Income connected to Agriculture Activity+8523 Interest ... against Guide lines of Limited Scrutiny This case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS to Verify only one issue- Agriculture Income as compared to the Total income. So the issue was to verify the large agriculture Income. The assessee was having his bank account jointly with his father

Mohammed Ibrabim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 486/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 153ASection 69B

ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 466/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 153ASection 69B

ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 464/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 153ASection 69B

ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 463/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 153ASection 69B

ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

ITO, New Delhi vs. Goldenland Developers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 4964/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 4964/Del/2014 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Goldenland Developers Ward – 12(2), Ltd., 3-B, Lig Flats, Rajouri C.R. Building, Garden Extn. New Delhi-27 New Delhi Pan: Aabcg 5825 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. And Shri Deepesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS

Atul Govindji Shroff, Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-3, Vadodara

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1443/AHD/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT/DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 54F

property and therefore assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act as well as the assessee having failed to declare any agricultural income from the Farm property, on that count also the claim of the assessee that the Farm property as a commercial property was rejected ... made to Section 54F dealing with the deduction which is the subject matter of the appeal and Section-2(lA) which defines the agriculture income. As per the proviso to Section-54F, an assessee shall not be entitled for deduction u/s.54F if he has more than one residential house

Vashistha Maheshbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Maheshbhai Amrutbhai Patel, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Gandhinagar

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1327/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Maheshbhai Amrutbhai Patel Ito, Ward-3 Shiva Sadan, Vs Gandhinagar. Opp: Uma Sanskar Tirth National Highway-8 Chandrala, Dist. Gandhinagar Pan : Adzpp 6022 B

For Respondent: Ms.Neeju Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 68

date of clearance of the cheque. The copy of ITR-V filed for A.Y.2015-16 on 24.03.2017 reflected the income of Rs.4,120/- only with agricultural income of Rs.4,05,493/-. Thus, the appellant did not fully and satisfactory discharge his onus to prove the genuineness as well as the creditworthiness ... income for the year was grossly insufficient to source the advance, being income of Rs. 4120 returned to tax and Rs. 4,05,493/- agricultural income. A very pertinent fact noted by him was that the advance was given out of cash deposited immediately before . Ld.Counsel for the assessee

Smt John Sushila Geroge, Kanyakumari vs. ACIT, Ward 4, Nagercoil

ITA 52/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.52/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Smt. John Sushila George, The Acit, 21/276 - Shine Cottage, Ward-4, Unniyoorkonam, Nagercoil. Kulasekharam, Kanyakumari District-629 161. [Pan: Dcaps 9353 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

John Sushila George :: 3 :: 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The assessee an individual who earns agricultural income has sold her agricultural land for Rs.38,57,000/- and out of which, she received Rs.24 lakhs in cheque (which was credited after ... taken or accepted and the person by whom, the loan or deposit or specified sum is taken or accepted are both having agricultural income and neither of them has any income chargeable to tax under this Act. Further, the assessee brought to the notice of the Addl.CIT as well

G. Elumalai, Vellore vs. DCIT, Cengtral Circle-3(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1591/CHNY/2023[2021-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2024AY 2021-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1591/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Dy. Commissioner Of G. Elumalai V. Income Tax, 308/66, Bajani Koil Street, Central Circle -3(4), Alamelurangapuram, Chennai-34. Puduvasur, Vellore – 632 009. [Pan: Aaxpe-9401-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 131Section 132ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

ld.CIT(A) has erred in not considering the commission of Rs.3 lakhs rental :-5-: ITA. No: 1591/Chny/2023 income of Rs.8,47,500/- and agricultural income of Rs.11,75,000/- as income of the family members to arrive at the cash on hand as on 13.07.2019, which totals to Rs.23 ... Agricultural income Last year 10,000 3,00,000 2,40,000 3,20,000 8,70,000 Current year 10,000 1,00,000 75,000 1,20,000 3,05,000 Cost

Sandeep Kumar Sanserwal, Yamunanagar vs. ITO Ward-4, Yamunagar

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

ITA 527/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Because the action of dismissing the appeal is being challenged facts & law by upholding the determined assessed income at Rs 28,71,290/- plus Agricultural Income of Rs 15,50,360/- by making an addition of Rs 23,00,000/- by treating the same as cash credit ... having income from business and other sources. The assessee filed his return of income on 26/03/2018 declaring total income of Rs.5,71,290/- and agricultural income of Rs. 15,50,360/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny under

A Raja, Tenkasi vs. Assessment Unit, New Delhi

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 888/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.888/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri A. Raja Ito बनाम/ #92/7, North Street, Ward-4, Kurukkalpatti , Sankarankoil-627 756. Tirunelveli. Vs. Tenkasi Dist. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aompr-8774-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Fca) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-06-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT) -Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69A

sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of Rs.25.90 Lacs u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act which represents agricultural income. 2. From para-4 of impugned order it could be seen that the assessee has failed to appear during first appellate proceedings despite being provided with several opportunities