https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241292 Receipts from sale of Prosopis Juliflora crop grown on the assessee's land were treated as agricultural income under section 2(1A) of the Income-tax Act because the revenue's evidence was insufficient to displace the claim. The seed dealer's statement was found unreliable due to inconsistencies, and the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to cross-examine that witness. Supporting sale records and other material corroborated the crop sale, so adverse inference could not be drawn merely from doubts about the dealer's version or the revenue's view of how the crop was grown. The receipts were held not to be income from other sources. en-us Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Dec 2013 07:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241292 Receipts from sale of Prosopis Juliflora crop grown on the assessee's land were treated as agricultural income under section 2(1A) of the Income-tax Act because the revenue's evidence was insufficient to displace the claim. The seed dealer's statement was found unreliable due to inconsistencies, and the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to cross-examine that witness. Supporting sale records and other material corroborated the crop sale, so adverse inference could not be drawn merely from doubts about the dealer's version or the revenue's view of how the crop was grown. The receipts were held not to be income from other sources. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241292