Income Tax : The Income Tax Department has issued detailed FAQs explaining the meaning, computation, and tax treatment of agricultural income u...
Income Tax : Many taxpayers receive notices despite exemption due to AIS-ITR mismatches. The case highlights that non-reporting of even exempt ...
Income Tax : The new law narrows the scope of agricultural income by introducing strict conditions and exclusions. It emphasizes documentation ...
Income Tax : The issue is whether agricultural income affects eligibility for rebate under Section 87A. The article explains that legally, tota...
Income Tax : The case explains how agricultural income remains tax-free under Section 10(1) but affects tax rates on other income. Key takeaway...
Income Tax : The issue concerns high-pitched additions proposed under faceless scrutiny even where agricultural income is exempt and fully docu...
Income Tax : ITAT held that agricultural land within the prescribed municipal distance is a capital asset and restricted the on-money addition ...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that the addition under Section 69A could not be sustained as the assessee had produced land records, agricultural s...
Income Tax : The court examined whether reassessment could proceed without any incriminating material from search. It held that absence of such...
Income Tax : The issue involved classification of land for capital gains taxation. The Court held that revenue records and evidence of agricult...
Income Tax : The issue involved denial of exemption on sale of agricultural land. The Tribunal held that the land met conditions of Section 2(1...
Income Tax : CBDT circular on C&AG report findings. Directs AOs to verify land records, sales, and expenses to ensure correct exemption of agri...
Explains that revenue records alone don’t qualify land as agricultural; actual use determines tax treatment. Key takeaway: Land used commercially may attract capital gains tax despite agricultural classification.
Tribunal held that AO erred by rejecting agricultural income based on estimated rates and online data while ignoring affidavits from buyers. It ruled that uncontroverted evidence cannot be replaced by assumptions, leading to deletion of ₹1.20 crore addition.
Tribunal reviewed onion cultivation expenses claimed at 21% of gross receipts and found CIT(A)’s 35% estimate excessive. Net agricultural income accepted at Rs.67.12 lakh, partly allowing the appeal.
The ITAT Bangalore held that income from tissue culture and nursery operations forms part of agricultural income under Section 10(1) when integrated with land-based cultivation.
The ITAT Chennai held that rejecting agricultural income solely for lack of receipts is unjustified when similar income was accepted in earlier and later years.
Kerala High Court denied the Section 10(37) capital gains exemption for land with trees, ruling that mere existence of rubber or fruit trees is insufficient. Assessee must prove actual agricultural activity and income in the preceding two years. The Court directed the AO to re-examine the alternate Section 54F exemption claim on merits.
The ITAT Panaji sent the disallowance of agricultural income back to the AO for fresh review, finding that the lower authorities ignored substantial documents and confirmations provided by the assessee. The ruling confirms that tax authorities must properly verify factual material and grant a fair hearing before disbelieving a farm income claim.
CBDT circular on C&AG report findings. Directs AOs to verify land records, sales, and expenses to ensure correct exemption of agricultural income.
Chennai ITAT ruled in Devaraya Pillai Subramanian case that interest on enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land, exempt under S.10(37), is also exempt.
ITAT Chennai sets aside ₹1.03 crore addition; holds that official revenue records and expert reports outweigh Google Earth data in agricultural income cases.
