← 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

Kiran Pal Singh, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle, Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1861/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1861/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2013-14) Ita No. 1863/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2015-16) Ita No. 1865/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) Ita No. 2589/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2019-20) Kiran Pal Singh Vs. Dcit House No. 453, Sector- Central Circle 9, Faridabad, C. R. Building, Faridabad, Haryana Haryana-121001 Pan: Akmpp5108N Appellant Respondent

Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69Section 9

balance cash is belonged to the savings of his wife, father who is retired and getting his pension from Military and agricultural income received by him and his family members earned from last 10-15 years. Thus, the source of entire cash found from his possession stands fully explained

Kiran Pal Singh, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle, Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1860/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1861/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2013-14) Ita No. 1863/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2015-16) Ita No. 1865/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) Ita No. 2589/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2019-20) Kiran Pal Singh Vs. Dcit House No. 453, Sector- Central Circle 9, Faridabad, C. R. Building, Faridabad, Haryana Haryana-121001 Pan: Akmpp5108N Appellant Respondent

Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69Section 9

balance cash is belonged to the savings of his wife, father who is retired and getting his pension from Military and agricultural income received by him and his family members earned from last 10-15 years. Thus, the source of entire cash found from his possession stands fully explained

Noman Khan, Bareli, Raisen vs. ITO, Raisen

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

ITA 158/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninoman Khan Ito S/O Atik Khan Ward No.15, Raisen Kanya Shala Road Bareli Vs. Raisen (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Czwpk3410M Assessee By Shri Arun Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2024

Section 144Section 69ASection 80T

erred in facts and in law in confirming the addition of? 1190000/- u/s 69A of Income Tax Act as unexplained money whereas it is agricultural income. 3 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in confirming ... addition of? 316084/- as Income from Other Sources whereas ? 310000/- is agricultural income and? 6084/- is bank interest. 4 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in confirming the assessment order which has arbitrarily and without

Rajaram Patidar, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer 2(4), Hoshangabad Road

Appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 129/IND/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11 Rajaram Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, H.No.112, Near Ram Lila 2(4), Maidan, Hoshangabad Road, बनाम/ Ward No. 52-53, Bhopal Vs. Misrod (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Bkapp7594R Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2024

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

assessee filed return of AY 2010-11 on 12.12.2011 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,00,000/- from rent of tractor and agricultural income of Rs. 75,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny vide notice dated 13.08.2012/05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) and the AO ultimately passed assessment-order ... account of undisclosed interest income and (ii) Rs. 55,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash-credit. The AO, however, accepted agricultural income declared by assessee. The assessee carried matter in first-appeal whereupon the CIT(A) confirmed additions to the extent

Rajani Sharma, Sultanpur vs. ITO, Raisen

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

ITA 278/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirajani Sharma Ito House No.10, Ward No.11, Raisen Sultanpur, Goharganj Vs. Raisen (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fcyps5335B Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27 .06.2024

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

circumstances of the case and in law the AO arbitrarily ascertained Rs. 36,000 per acre as the revenue per acre for calculating agriculture income. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case the assessment order passed by AO has been framed without Page 2 of 8 ITANo.278/Ind/2023 Rajani ... further pointed out that the AO has made addition of Rs.23,00,346/- as unexplained income by rejecting the claim of agricultural income of the assesse. The AO has found some discrepancy in the details filed by the assessee regarding the land taken by the assesse on lease (Kalinama

Gopalkrishna Naginbhai Patel, Petlad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad

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

ITA 545/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Against The Appellate Order Dated 8Th May, 2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax(Appeals),National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi( Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1052644110(1))

For Appellant: Shri B.T. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

notice u/s. 148, the assessee filed return of income on 01st May, 2017 declaring total income of Rs. 1,35,622/- and agricultural income of Rs. 3,62,540/-. Subsequently, the AO issued statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) to the assessee. The assessee submitted in its reply ... assessee is doing miscellaneous business of trading and small works. The assessee claimed that assessee had deposited cash of Rs.11,00,000/- out of agricultural income and other income as reflected in the computation of total income, the copy of which was enclosed by the assessee before

Shri Bhushan Bhagwant Shinde, Pune vs. ITO-(It) Wrd-14(3), Pune

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

ITA 750/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.750/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri P.D. KudvaFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep P. Sathe
Section 143(3)

individual who filed the Return of Income for the A.Y. 2020-21 on 22.12.2020 declaring total income of Rs.2,49,850/- and Agricultural income of Rs.57,24,588/-. The case was selected for Scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notices were issued to the appellant. The assessee was called upon to upload ... activities and relevant expenses, the AO vide order dated 09.09.2022 completed the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act bringing to tax the gross Agricultural Income amounting to Rs.73,16,880/- treating the same as “Income from other Sources. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before

Erki Ramesh Upadhyaya HUF, Puttur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

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

ITA 476/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 148Section 171Section 234ASection 250

filed the return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 07.09.2019 by declaring again the total income of Rs.14,840/- and agricultural income of Rs.6,80,450/-. 6. Further, during the course of Reassessment proceedings the copies of return of income filed along with computation of income / bank account statements

Hajishahbaz Abdulgani Sipai, Kalakeri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Bijapur

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

ITA 1058/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha .R, Advocate
Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

considered before making addition in the hands of the assessee. 4.1 The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant documents establishing the agricultural income earned during the relevant year and the cash deposited into the bank accounts during the demonetisation period. The Ld.AO is directed to verify all the details

Shri. Gopal Lokesh, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 752/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 68

Appeals) erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 3,25,000 holding that the same cannot be considered as agricultural income. 9. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition ... Rs.1,04,87,193. Assessee submitted reply stating the cash deposit of Rs.1,21,02,439 was out of dairy business, water sales and agricultural income amounting to Rs.98,56,386 and balance amount of Rs.22,46,053 was not explained and it was treated unexplained cash receipt and added

Ramakrishnan Aathyswamy, Kanyakumari vs. Uti, Ward-1, Nagercoil

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

ITA 764/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.764/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Ramakrishnan Aathyswamy, The Ito, 21/1, Slb South Street, Ward-1, Nagercoil, Nagercoil. Kanyakumar-629 001. [Pan: Cdvpa 3345 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Aathyswamy :: 3 :: AY 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs.4,96,800/- and claimed exemption of an amount of Rs.1,05,00,000/- being agricultural income. The AO in order to verify the claim (genuineness of agricultural income) issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 30.03.2021 [and the assessment ... certain relevant documents/Sale Deed of the agricultural property; and therefore, the AO was of the opinion that the assessee has not substantiated his claim (agricultural income of Rs.1,05,00,000/-) without any detailed explanation as called for by him u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 01.12.2021 along with supporting

Sh. Satwinder Mohan Sood, Fatehgarh Sahib vs. ITO, Ward-1, Mandi Gobindgarh

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

ITA 308/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253

bank account which is arbitrary and illegal. 3. That the assessee had complete sources of cash deposit in the bank account being receipts from agricultural income and sale of agricultural land duly explained during the course of assessment proceedings and as such upholding of the addition is arbitrary and unjustified

Shri Kadu Satwaji Gaikwad, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Aurangabad

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

ITA 846/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.846/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Kadu Satwaji Gaikwad, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Ns 1/14, 11Th Scheme, Near Aurangabad. Foster B. Ed College, Shivaji Nagar, Aurangabad- 431001. Pan : Ailpg9644D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.02.2024 Passed By Ld Addl./Jcit(A), Agra For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Appeal Addl/Jict(A)Agra Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs 10,40,000/— Without Considering The Material On Record Available In The First Appeal Proceeding. The Appeal Has Been Wrongly Dismissed, Which Is Not Justifiable & Is Liable To Be Set Aside By The Kind Of Interference Of This Hon’Ble Appellate Authority.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

time of the final hearing.” 3. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual earned income from salary and agricultural income. On the basis of information that the assessee had deposited Rs.10,40,000/- in his savings bank account, notice

Pushpendra Singh Chouhan, Sehore vs. ITO-Sehore, Sehore

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

ITA 122/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Pushpendra Singh Ito Chouhan, Sehore C/O Adv.Hitesh Chimnani, Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18 South Tukoganj, Near Hotel Crown Palace, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cggps1953Q Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ms. Komal Wadhwani & Komal Kataria, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

assessee does not arise. He has further submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and the deposit in the bank account is from the agricultural income and therefore, no tax would be payable either on the assessed income or any advance tax payable by him and therefore, the order ... family members could gather to prove that they are owning agricultural land and they carry agricultural activities on these lands to earn agricultural income are here by produced as additional evidence. If your goodself require anything further, kindly let me know. 8. Details of agricultural lands owned by the assessee

Sajjad Ali, Chittorgarh vs. DCIT(Intl)- Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 459/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha (CIT-DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54

Trib Revision—Order erroneous or prejudicial to revenue—Over exercise of power—Assessee an individual filed his return declaring income and agricultural income—Case was selected for limited scrutiny for reason that there was a substantial increase in capital during year relevant to assessment year under consideration—AO accepted return ... assessment order and accepted return filed by assessee after examining issue regarding increase in capital account as assessee had credited his capital account with agricultural income and capital gain from sale of flat—Assessee has reflected that same in its capital account—Further in response to letter issued

Kanji Ganesh Patel HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-22(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1186/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 1186/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15) Kanji Ganesh Patel Huf Vs. Ito, Ward 22(2)(1) 1905 Building No. 3 Piramal Chamber Raheja Classique Lalbaug, Parel Oshiwara, New Link Road, Mumbai-400 012. Andheri West Mumbai-400 053. Pan : Aaghk3564D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Prakash G. Jhunjhunwala Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi 1. This Appeal Is Filed By Kanji Ganesh Patel Huf (Assessee/Appellant) Against Appellate Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (The Learned Cit – A) For Assessment Year 2014 – 15 Dated 16/1/2024 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 22 (2) (1), Mumbai (The Learned Ao) Was Dismissed. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved With The Same & Has Preferred Appeal Raising Solitary Ground About Addition Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act Wherein The Exemption Under Section 10 (1) Of Agricultural Income Was Denied To The Assessee Of Rs. 2,748,802/–. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Case Shows That Assessee Is An Huf Filed Its Return Of Income On 31/7/2014 At A Total Income Of Rs. 321,608/- In The Return Of Income Assessee Has Claimed Exemption Under Section 10 Page 1 Of 5

Section 10Section 143Section 68

preferred appeal raising solitary ground about addition under section 68 of the income tax act wherein the exemption under section 10 (1) of agricultural income was denied to the assessee of Rs. 2,748,802/–. 3. The brief fact of the case shows that assessee is an HUF filed ... section 10 Page 1 of 5 Kanji Ganesh Patel HUF A Y 2014-15 ITA number 1186/MM/2024 (1) of Rs. 2,748,802/– of agricultural income. The assessee was asked to support the claim of exemption. Assessee submitted that it is having agricultural income from sale of crops which include

Mohammed Iqbal Mulla, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 11(1)(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai

In the result all the grounds of appeal are allowed with above direction

ITA 4808/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 4808/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2016-17) Mohammed Iqbal Mulla Vs. Ito-11(1)(1) 601/701, Atlantis, Seven Aayakar Bhavan Bungalow, Andheri West M.K. Road Maharashtra-400 061. Churchgate Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaepm2197E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rishab Jain Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By Mr. Mohammad Iqbal Mulla, ( The Assessee Appellant) Against The Appellate Order Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (The Learned Cit – A) For Assessment Year 2016 – 17 On 30/10/2023 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 27/12/2018 Passed By The Income Tax Ofc, Ward – 11 (1) (2), Mumbai (The Learned Ao) Wherein The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs. 1,655,770/– On Account Of Addition Of Salary Income, Unsecured Loan Under Section 68, Advanced Against Sale Of Agricultural Land Under Section 68 & Agricultural Income , Total Addition Amounting To Rs. 5,401,802/–, Was Dismissed. 2. Therefore, The Assessee Is Aggrieved With The Appellate Order & Has Preferred To Appeal Raising Grounds Against All The Additions Confirmed. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Show That The Assessee Is An Individual & Director In Cities In World Travels Private Limited & Messes Present Page 1 Of 6

Section 143Section 68

account of addition of salary income, unsecured loan under section 68, advanced against sale of agricultural land under section 68 and agricultural income , total addition amounting to Rs. 5,401,802/–, was dismissed. 2. Therefore, the assessee is aggrieved with the appellate order and has preferred to appeal raising grounds ... however assessee did not furnish any information and therefore the addition was made under section 68 of the act. Similarly, the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs. 900,228/–. Assessee was asked to justify the same however assessee merely submitted form 7/12 and further claimed that income shown agricultural

Jitendra Udaylal Jain, Maharashtra vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 4543/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

facie evidence, the purchases of shares have been contemporaneously entered into the books of account of the assessee. 10.2 The assessee has been declaring agricultural income in his returns of income for the assessment years from 1990- 91 to 2001-02. The total agricultural income returned by the assessee ... purchase of shares as on 31-3-1999 was Rs. 4,48,160. The cash available with the assessee by way of agricultural income was much higher than the investment made by the assessee in the purchase of shares as on 31-3-1999. After making the investments

Kautilya Shares and Stocks Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 14(2), Delhi

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

ITA 3884/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 11Section 115JSection 12Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(14)

forming part of the book profit. The contention of the assessee was that the profit arising on the sale of its Rubber Estate was agricultural income and therefore it was outside the scope and purview of the book profit u/s 115JB. But this contention was not accepted ... HELD THAT:- Obviously, the profit on sale of agricultural land is agricultural income and the court further held that standing trees also form part of the immovable property and therefore contributed to agricultural income alone. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. All India

Bharatkumar Bhikhabhai Chavda, Hariyala Kheda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Nadiad

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

ITA 797/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad In Ita No. 797/Ahd/2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/ 2023-24/1059995984(1) Dated 22-01-2024 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals),National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi , Which Appeal In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 07-11-2019 Passed By The 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 253(3)Section 69A

farmer and he does not have income chargeable to tax.It is claimed by the assessee that he has advanced money out of agricultural income which was returned during the year. The CIT(A) has power to make such inquiries as he thinks fit and may also direct AO to make