https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760399 The ITAT Bangalore ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order that upheld the AO's addition of 50% of agricultural income as income from other sources. The tribunal held that the AO acted on mere surmises and conjectures without substantial material evidence to prove the agricultural income was inflated. The AO cannot question business conduct without specific legal requirements or concrete proof. The tribunal noted that in the assessee's cases for AY 2018-19 and 2020-21, the AO accepted agricultural income without adverse inference, supporting the assessee's position. en-us Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Oct 2024 08:13:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760399 The ITAT Bangalore ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order that upheld the AO's addition of 50% of agricultural income as income from other sources. The tribunal held that the AO acted on mere surmises and conjectures without substantial material evidence to prove the agricultural income was inflated. The AO cannot question business conduct without specific legal requirements or concrete proof. The tribunal noted that in the assessee's cases for AY 2018-19 and 2020-21, the AO accepted agricultural income without adverse inference, supporting the assessee's position. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760399