AREHALLI RUDRAPPA VISHWANATHA,AREHALLY,TEMPLE,BELUR vs. INCOME- TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, HASSAN
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 2654/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17
Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Srikrishna Kantila, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT-DR
Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 44ASection 80C
80C, was below the taxable limit for the relevant assessment year.
6. The learned CIT Appeals has further erred in not appreciating that part of the cash deposits represented agricultural income from the appellant's 4 acres of agricultural land, which is exempt under section 10(1) of the Act.
7. The learned Commissioner of Income tax has erred
