https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782374 ITAT Chennai allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the addition made by the AO on account of alleged non-genuine agricultural income from sugarcane. The Tribunal noted that the assessee held about 10 acres of agricultural land and that the Revenue had consistently accepted the assessee's agricultural income in earlier and subsequent AYs, including scrutiny for AY 2020-21. It held that mere non-production of receipts or invoices for agricultural operations could not justify treating the income as non-agricultural, and the disallowance sustained by CIT(A) was unjustified. en-us Tue, 11 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Nov 2025 08:24:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782374 ITAT Chennai allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the addition made by the AO on account of alleged non-genuine agricultural income from sugarcane. The Tribunal noted that the assessee held about 10 acres of agricultural land and that the Revenue had consistently accepted the assessee's agricultural income in earlier and subsequent AYs, including scrutiny for AY 2020-21. It held that mere non-production of receipts or invoices for agricultural operations could not justify treating the income as non-agricultural, and the disallowance sustained by CIT(A) was unjustified. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782374