<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (7) TMI 29 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794143</link>
    <description>Audited accounts credibly bifurcated agricultural and non-agricultural income, and the assessee disclosed the non-agricultural portion for tax while claiming the balance as exempt agricultural income under Section 10(1). The revenue did not produce contrary material to dislodge that bifurcation or show the exempt claim was false, so the addition treating the amount as business income was not justified. The claimed agricultural income was therefore exempt, and the addition was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2026 08:47:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=909385" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 29 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794143</link>
      <description>Audited accounts credibly bifurcated agricultural and non-agricultural income, and the assessee disclosed the non-agricultural portion for tax while claiming the balance as exempt agricultural income under Section 10(1). The revenue did not produce contrary material to dislodge that bifurcation or show the exempt claim was false, so the addition treating the amount as business income was not justified. The claimed agricultural income was therefore exempt, and the addition was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794143</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>