“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

Udaya Sridhar Reddy Siddareddy, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT Central Circle - 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 524/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.523 To 526/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18) Shri Udaya Sridhar Reddy Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Siddareddy Central Circle 2(4) Visakhapatnam Hyderabad Pan:Aiyps1063R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rahul Singhani, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/05/2024 आदेश/Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M These 4 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Order Dated 30.08.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Ys.2014-15 To 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee On 15.5.2024 As Well As On 16.05.2024. Hence, We Are Page 1 Of 14

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Rahul Singhani, DR

Section 133A(3)(ia)Section 153ASection 2

year. A show-cause notice dated 15.04.2021 was issued to the assessee regarding the same. During the relevant financial year, the assessee has shown agricultural income as Rs. 2,00,O0O/-. As the assessee has not provided any details of land holdings, or agricultural activity performed by him, another show ... assessee. 6. Ground No.2 of the assessee’s appeal deals with the issue whether the income arrived from the fishing activity is an agricultural income or not from the commercial activities. Page 5 of 14 ITA 523 to 526 Udaya Sridhar Reddy Siddareddy 7. The learned DR drew our attention

Udaya Sridhar Reddy Siddareddy, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 523/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 May 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Rahul Singhani, DR

Section 133A(3)(ia)Section 153ASection 2

ACIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai vs. M Sukumar Reddy, Chennai

ITA 71/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.69/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.70/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.71/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Shri M. Sukumar Reddy बनाम 3Rd, 6A, Rajparis, Aishwarya, Central Circle-3(4) Chennai. Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, / Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adzpm-1863-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.24/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.69/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. Cross Objection No.25/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.70/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 6. Cross Objection No.26/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.71/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR

Section 132Section 153A

regards the whole of the company's business. 3. The Id. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of agricultural income. As fresh evidence were filed, the Id. CIT(A) should have allowed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules ... Assessing Officer did not have any adverse material seized from the assessee in the course of search of the assessee to show that the agricultural income claimed by him in the return originally which is deemed to have been concluded was not correct. 4. The search of the assessee u/s.132

ACIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai vs. M Sukumar Reddy, Chennai

ITA 70/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR

Section 132Section 153A

ACIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai vs. M Sukumar Reddy, Chennai

ITA 69/CHNY/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR

Section 132Section 153A

Sukh Darshan Singh, Delhi vs. ITO Ward.43(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2233/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 54F

whereas Appellant need not submit any return u/s.139 of 1. T. Act, 1961 having either below taxable income or exempt income u/s 10 as agricultural income under same Act. 3. On Facts & circumstances in law, Ld.CIT(A) has erred by exceeding jurisdiction while enhancing the addition from Rs.4096805

Motiram Kisan Kahandal, Girnare Nashik vs. CIT Appeal, Nashik

Appeal is partly allowed in above

ITA 291/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri B D KhairnarFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 147Section 68

short “the Act”). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : “Being agricultural income which is not to be consider as business income and hence assessment demand of Rs.11,05,580/- this is a artificial demand which

Smt. Mangla Ramniwas Mandhani Abmm Awas Yojna Foundation, Jalna vs. CIT ( Exemption ), Exemption

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

ITA 236/PUN/2024[N A]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2024

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.236/Pun/2024 (E-Appeal)

For Appellant: Shri Anand Partani &For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel

Section 10Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

Thalayar Rubber Industries, 131 ITR 162 a Full Bench of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court has held that Section 69 of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950, indicates that provisions of sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act are not attracted to proceedings under

Channabassayya Jagadeesh, Tumkur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Tumkur

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

ITA 684/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: None

Section 139Section 144Section 250Section 69A

making addition u/s. 69A of the IT Act as unexplained money as under: “Unexplained money not accepted as agricultural income - Rs.9,73,950/- Unexplained money not accepted as loan from Sri Mahesh - Rs.3,25.000/- Unexplained money with regard to transaction With Hanuman Saw Mills, Tumkur - Rs.2,51,373 Total Unexplained ... raised by the appellant are general in nature and does not require adjudication. Hence dismissed. 6. Ground no. 2 relates to the disallowance of agricultural income of Rs. 9,73,950/- (12,23,950 - 2,50,000) and treated as not Page 4 of 9 accounted for and brought

Malchira Chittiappa Nanaiah, Kodagu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Madikeri

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

ITA 651/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Viveka Prasada P, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

registered owner, which evidences that the assessee was the owner of agricultural land admeasuring area of 59.49 acres, which was sufficient to generate agricultural income disclosed in the return of income. The ld. AR regarding expenses claimed against agricultural receipt submitted that all these expenses were incurred for carrying ... contrary, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee has not filed any return of income other than the year in dispute disclosing agricultural income. As per the ld. DR, the assessee is diverting its undisclosed income under the garb of agricultural operations. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order

Narendra I Bhuva and Others, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above terms

ITA 3036/MUM/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalnarendra I Bhuva & Others. 554, Jonette, Jama Jamshedji Road, Matunga, Mumbai - 400 019. Pan: Aaahn2096M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 20(2) (1), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai – 400 012. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dinkle Hariya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69

case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has failed to consider that the amount deposited into bank account during the year was an agricultural income. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has failed to consider that

Anil Kumar Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2150/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

grossly erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs.30,65,000/- made by the Assessing Officer by treating agricultural income as income from other sources. 4. That Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has grossly erred in law as well as on facts ... received from Sh. Inder Pal Yadav (Father- in-law) ii. Gift of Rs.10,00,000/- received from Sh. Uday Veer Singh (Father) iii. Agricultural Income of Rs.34,65,000/- iv. Unsecured loan taken from M/s A C S Softweb Solutions Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.8,00,000/- v. Unsecured loans taken

Twara Diam, Bhavnagar vs. PCIT Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 90/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv., Shri Parimalsinh BFor Respondent: Shri Karun K Ojha, CIT D.R

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

return of the Agent was called, which revealed that a sum of Rs. 2,65,92,500/- was "payable to the assessee" as agricultural income. Based on the said material, Assessing Officer carried out assessment, accepting the income declared in the revised return from agricultural sources ... income, emanating from the order of the Assessing Officer, is writ large. On one hand, investment is accepted to have been made from the agricultural income and the money borrowed in the relevant year, whereas, on the other hand, it is sought to be justified as an agricultural income with

Hukam Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 264/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Chaudhary Addl. CIT

order of the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- ‘’The assessee has challenged the estimation of agricultural income at Rs 4,50,000 as against Rs 11,00,000 declared by the assessee. In the Para 4 of the assessment order ... estimated the agriculture income based on the gross receipts of agricultural income in the impugned year. In the scrutiny proceedings, the assessee submitted coples of 10 sale invoices issued by Krishi Upaj Mandi wherein the receipts aggregated to Rs. 7,65,596/-. Except those receipts no other documents were produced

Puran Hayat Singh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3), Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above

ITA 566/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Somnath M Wajale

Section 143(3)Section 69A

case and in law. The Learned Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.2,59,630/- u/s 69A, being part of the agricultural income of Rs.5,25,880/- as declared by the appellant by rejecting appellants contention. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... note in this factual backdrop that there is no denial to the assessee’s stand in principle that he had indeed been deriving agricultural income as well as carrying regular business activity(ies) in the nature of wastage goods, scrap and fire wood scrap sales. It is sufficiently indicated therefrom

Mullagolla Praneeth, K V Rangareddy vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Hospet

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

ITA 601/BANG/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey & Sp No.21/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramaniyan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 144

No.21/Bang/2024 Mullagolla Praneeth K.V., Rangareddy Page 2 of 4 4. The NFAC erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO by treating agricultural income earned by the Appellant as income from other sources without considering that the same has been accepted in the previous years and the Appellant ... sufficient land holding to substantiate the agricultural income. 5. The NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance made by the Ld. AO on interest on loan paid by the Appellant without considering that the same was incurred in the ordinary course of the Appellant's business and for the furtherance

Sh. Babu Singh S/O Sh. Kunda Singh, Fatehabad vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

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

ITA 342/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 29.03.2019. In compliance, the assessee filed the Income Tax Return, declaring an income of Rs.1,33,450/- + Agricultural income of Rs.8,54,752/-, on 21.11.2019. Consequently, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 22.11.2019, accepting the returned income

Rakesh Reddy Tanguturu, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 229/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha, G. Hon’Ble Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2019-20 Rakesh Reddy Tanguturu, Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of 8-2-293/82/F/A/65, Income Tax, Plot No.65-A, Circle – 6(1), Road No.14, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Hyderabad, Telangana. Pan : Aaupy9817A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Aves Madhukar, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 08.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.05.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2019-20 Arises From The Order Of Addl/Jcit (Appeals), Madurai, Dt.31.02.2024 Invoking Proceedings Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee, Who Is An Individual Having Income From Business, Other Sources & Agricultural Income. For The Year Under Appeal, In Addition To The Above Sources Of Income, The Assessee Had Also Reported Income From Capital Gains Being Gain On Redemption Of Mutual Funds. For The Previous Year Ending On 31.03.2019 Relevant To Ay 2019-20, The Original Return Of Income Was Filed Electronically On 27.09.2019 Admitting An Income Of Rs.1,35,05,760/- After Claiming Deduction Under Chapter Vi-A Of The Act. In The Original Return Of Income, The Assessee Had Also Reported Loss From Business Of Rs.40,21,673/-. The Business Loss Of Rs.40,21,673/- Was Not Set Off Against Any Other Source Of Income. Subsequently, The Return Was Revised On 21.08.2020 To Report The Revised Loss From Business To Rs.4,47,991/- From Rs.40,21,673/- . Even This Loss Of Rs.4,47,991/- Was Ignored In The Return, Meaning Thereby The Loss From Business Was Not Set Off Against Any Other Source Of Income Both In Original & Revised Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AVES Madhukar, Sr.A.R

Section 143(1)Section 39Section 90

short, “the Act”). 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee, who is an individual having income from business, other sources and agricultural income. For the year under appeal, in addition to the above sources of income, the assessee had also reported income from capital gains being gain

Ramesh Kumar Saini, Bhopal vs. ITO-3(2), Bhopal

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

ITA 481/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniramesh Kumar Saini Ito-3(2) 6/1 Ranthambore Complex Bhopal Vs. Zone 2 Mp Nagar Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Dijps0764K Assessee By Shri Saksham Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09 .05.2024

Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 69

assessee filed his return of income for year under consideration on 21st June 2019 declaring total income of Rs.2,41,010/- and agricultural income of Rs.1,40,000/-. During the assessment proceeding the assessee explained the source of deposit of Rs.20,00,000/- in the bank account as sale proceeds

Aabhushan, Dhamnod, Madhya Pradesh vs. ITO Dhar, Dhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 344/IND/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaabhushan Dhamnod Ito, Dhar 1St Floor, Ganpati Market Ab Road Dhamnod Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abgfa0812K Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & Shri S.N. Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

ledger account, copy of bank account statement of the lender and declaration letter of the lender showing the source of the said amount as agricultural income and therefore, No R.01 was filed by the lender. He has further submitted that the assessee has also produced the land record with ... no.68 of the paper book is supported by the land holding of the loan creditor that he was having source of loan advance as agricultural income and therefore, did not file any return of income. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case