My client's agricultural income is exempt, so why has the system charged tax at a higher rate on his non-agricultural income, and where in the Act is that written?
It is not written in the Income-tax Act at all, and that is the point. Section 10(1) excludes agricultural income from total income and the Income-tax Act contains no provision aggregating it; the aggregation is enacted afresh every year by section 2 of the annual Finance Act, which is the Central Act contemplated by section 4(1) of the Income-tax Act as fixing the rate. Sub-section (2) of that section applies where Paragraph A of Part I of the First Schedule applies and the assessee has, in the previous year, net agricultural income exceeding FIVE THOUSAND RUPEES in addition to total income, and the total income exceeds the basic exemption amount named in that sub-section. Where it applies, the net agricultural income is taken into account only for the purpose of charging income-tax on the total income, and the computation is: aggregate the total income and the net agricultural income and work out the tax on the aggregate at the Paragraph A rates; then increase the net agricultural income by the basic exemption sum and work out the tax on that figure at the same rates; the second amount is deducted from the first, and what is left is the tax on the total income.
Decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text) on 2014-04-01, reported as Section 2 of the Finance Act, 2011 as reproduced at para 8.4 of ITA No. 3393/AHD/2014 (ITAT Ahmedabad, 11 December 2018); clause (b)(i) and (ii) of an earlier Finance Act as reproduced in ITAT Jaipur, Shree Cement Limited v. ACIT (28 December 2017); continuing operation confirmed in ITA No. 4003/Mum/2025 (ITAT Mumbai, 8 May 2025). It bears on section 10(1), section 2(1A), section 4, section 4(1), section 115BAC of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Capital Gains Exemptions, Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
Two consequences follow from the source of the rule, and both are practical. First, because the mechanism lives in the Finance Act and is re-enacted every year, the FIGURES in it — the basic exemption amount that both sets the entry threshold and is added to the net agricultural income at the second step — change with the year, while the five thousand rupee floor for agricultural income has been carried forward unchanged in every Finance Act checked from 2002 to 2023. It has NOT always been five thousand rupees: the departmental Finance Act, 1997 page sets the floor at SIX HUNDRED rupees and the entry threshold at forty thousand rupees. The floor is a figure to be read out of the year's own Act like any other. You must read the Finance Act for the assessment year in hand; you cannot carry a figure over from a text-book or from last year's return. Second, because the aggregation is only for rate, agricultural income is still not charged: it never enters total income, and the arithmetic is a subtraction designed so that the exempt slab is not consumed twice. Note also that the entry conditions are cumulative — net agricultural income must EXCEED five thousand rupees AND total income must exceed the basic exemption amount — so a small farm receipt alongside a below-threshold total income produces no rate effect at all. Finally, this is why understating or omitting agricultural income in a return is not harmless: it produces a wrong rate, and the Tribunal has treated a claimed agricultural income that was never disclosed in the return as a reason for disbelieving that it was earned.
Binding on the department, not on the assessee or the courts. An assessee may rely on a circular that is beneficial to them.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Section 4(1) of the Income-tax Act provides that where any Central Act enacts that income-tax shall be charged for any assessment year at any rate or rates, income-tax at that rate or those rates shall be charged for that year in accordance with, and subject to the provisions of, that Act in respect of the total income of the previous year of every person. The Central Act so contemplated is the annual Finance Act. Section 2 of the Finance Act, 2011, as reproduced by the Tribunal, provided: "(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 2011, income-tax shall be charged at the rates specified in Part I of the First Schedule and such tax shall be increased by a surcharge, for purposes of the Union, calculated in each case in the manner provided therein. (2) In the cases to which Paragraph A of Part I of the First Schedule applies, where the assessee has, in the previous year, any net agricultural income exceeding five thousand rupees, in addition to total income, and the total income exceeds one lakh sixty thousand rupees, then,-- (a) the net agricultural income shall be taken into account, in the manner provided in clause (b) [that is to say, as if the net agricultural income were comprised in the total income after the first one lakh sixty thousand rupees of the total income but without being liable to tax], only for the purpose of charging income-tax in respect of the total income; and". Clause (b) of the corresponding provision, in the older form reproduced by the ITAT Jaipur, reads: "(b) the income-tax chargeable shall be calculated as follows:-- (i) the total income and the net agricultural income shall be aggregated and the amount of income-tax shall be determined in respect of the aggregate income at the rates specified in the said Paragraph A, as if such aggregate income were the total income; (ii) the net agricultural income shall be increased by a sum of fifty thousand rupees, and the amount of income-tax shall be determined in respect of the net agricultural income as so increased at the rates specified in the said paragraph A, as if the net agricultural income as so increased were the total income;". The sums named — one lakh sixty thousand rupees and fifty thousand rupees — are the basic exemption amounts of the years to which those Finance Acts related and are not current figures. Sub-clause (iii), the subtraction step, reads on the departmental Finance Act, 2014 page: "the amount of income-tax determined in accordance with sub-clause (i) shall be reduced by the amount of income-tax determined in accordance with sub-clause (ii) and the sum so arrived at shall be the income-tax in respect of the total income". The departmental Finance Act, 2002 page carries the same sub-clause followed by a proviso: "Provided that the amount of income-tax so arrived at, as reduced by the amount of rebate of income-tax calculated under Chapter VIII-A, shall be increased by a surcharge for purposes of the Union calculated in each case in the manner provided in that Paragraph and the sum so arrived at shall be the income-tax in respect of the total income." The entry threshold and the sum added at the second step are the same figure in each year and move with the year: fifty thousand rupees in the Finance Act, 2002, one lakh sixty thousand in 2011, one lakh eighty thousand in 2012 and two lakh rupees in 2014. None of those is the current figure.
Not a judgment. The position is that agricultural income is excluded from total income by section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act and is not charged, but that the annual Finance Act, acting as the Central Act referred to in section 4(1), aggregates net agricultural income exceeding five thousand rupees with the total income for the limited purpose of fixing the rate, by aggregating the two, computing tax on the aggregate at the Paragraph A rates, computing tax at the same rates on the net agricultural income increased by the basic exemption sum, and taking the difference.
The ITAT Ahmedabad reasoned at paragraphs 8.2 to 8.5 that section 4(1) means that while the total income of a person is determined in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, the rate or rates at which income-tax will be paid for any assessment year are stipulated in the Central Act; that in accordance with section 4 the Finance Act has been stipulating those rates each year; and that the Finance Act, 2011 clearly provides under section 2 of Chapter II that the net agricultural income shall be taken into account in the manner provided therein for the purpose of determining the rates of income-tax applicable to the income of the assessee. It concluded that in view of the clear provisions in section 4 of the Act and section 2 of the Finance Act, agricultural income of an assessee has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the rate of tax applicable to his income, and that in the absence of disclosure of agricultural income in the return it could not believe that the parties concerned had generated agricultural income.
In the cases to which Paragraph A of Part I of the First Schedule applies, where the assessee has, in the previous year, any net agricultural income exceeding five thousand rupees, in addition to total income, and the total income exceeds two lakh rupees, then,—
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppIt is not written in the Income-tax Act at all, and that is the point. Section 10(1) excludes agricultural income from total income and the Income-tax Act contains no provision aggregating it; the aggregation is enacted afresh every year by section 2 of the annual Finance Act, which is the Central Act contemplated by section 4(1) of the Income-tax Act as fixing the rate. Sub-section (2) of that section applies where Paragraph A of Part I of the First Schedule applies and the assessee has, in the previous year, net agricultural income exceeding FIVE THOUSAND RUPEES in addition to total income, and the total income exceeds the basic exemption amount named in that sub-section. Where it applies, the net agricultural income is taken into account only for the purpose of charging income-tax on the total income, and the computation is: aggregate the total income and the net agricultural income and work out the tax on the aggregate at the Paragraph A rates; then increase the net agricultural income by the basic exemption sum and work out the tax on that figure at the same rates; the second amount is deducted from the first, and what is left is the tax on the total income. This was decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text) and bears on section 10(1), section 2(1A), section 4, section 4(1), section 115BAC of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Section 2 of the Finance Act, 2011 as reproduced at para 8.4 of ITA No. 3393/AHD/2014 (ITAT Ahmedabad, 11 December 2018); clause (b)(i) and (ii) of an earlier Finance Act as reproduced in ITAT Jaipur, Shree Cement Limited v. ACIT (28 December 2017); continuing operation confirmed in ITA No. 4003/Mum/2025 (ITAT Mumbai, 8 May 2025). Two consequences follow from the source of the rule, and both are practical. First, because the mechanism lives in the Finance Act and is re-enacted every year, the FIGURES in it — the basic exemption amount that both sets the entry threshold and is added to the net agricultural income at the second step — change with the year, while the five thousand rupee floor for agricultural income has been carried forward unchanged in every Finance Act checked from 2002 to 2023. It has NOT always been five thousand rupees: the departmental Finance Act, 1997 page sets the floor at SIX HUNDRED rupees and the entry threshold at forty thousand rupees. The floor is a figure to be read out of the year's own Act like any other. You must read the Finance Act for the assessment year in hand; you cannot carry a figure over from a text-book or from last year's return. Second, because the aggregation is only for rate, agricultural income is still not charged: it never enters total income, and the arithmetic is a subtraction designed so that the exempt slab is not consumed twice. Note also that the entry conditions are cumulative — net agricultural income must EXCEED five thousand rupees AND total income must exceed the basic exemption amount — so a small farm receipt alongside a below-threshold total income produces no rate effect at all. Finally, this is why understating or omitting agricultural income in a return is not harmless: it produces a wrong rate, and the Tribunal has treated a claimed agricultural income that was never disclosed in the return as a reason for disbelieving that it was earned. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Read section 2 of the Finance Act for the assessment year in hand before you compute. Do not carry the basic exemption figure over from another year or from a commentary.
Section 4(1) of the Income-tax Act provides that where any Central Act enacts that income-tax shall be charged for any assessment year at any rate or rates, income-tax at that rate or those rates shall be charged for that year in accordance with, and subject to the provisions of, that Act in respect of the total income of the previous year of every person. The Central Act so contemplated is the annual Finance Act. Section 2 of the Finance Act, 2011, as reproduced by the Tribunal, provided: "(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 2011, income-tax shall be charged at the rates specified in Part I of the First Schedule and such tax shall be increased by a surcharge, for purposes of the Union, calculated in each case in the manner provided therein. (2) In the cases to which Paragraph A of Part I of the First Schedule applies, where the assessee has, in the previous year, any net agricultural income exceeding five thousand rupees, in addition to total income, and the total income exceeds one lakh sixty thousand rupees, then,-- (a) the net agricultural income shall be taken into account, in the manner provided in clause (b) [that is to say, as if the net agricultural income were comprised in the total income after the first one lakh sixty thousand rupees of the total income but without being liable to tax], only for the purpose of charging income-tax in respect of the total income; and". Clause (b) of the corresponding provision, in the older form reproduced by the ITAT Jaipur, reads: "(b) the income-tax chargeable shall be calculated as follows:-- (i) the total income and the net agricultural income shall be aggregated and the amount of income-tax shall be determined in respect of the aggregate income at the rates specified in the said Paragraph A, as if such aggregate income were the total income; (ii) the net agricultural income shall be increased by a sum of fifty thousand rupees, and the amount of income-tax shall be determined in respect of the net agricultural income as so increased at the rates specified in the said paragraph A, as if the net agricultural income as so increased were the total income;". The sums named — one lakh sixty thousand rupees and fifty thousand rupees — are the basic exemption amounts of the years to which those Finance Acts related and are not current figures. Sub-clause (iii), the subtraction step, reads on the departmental Finance Act, 2014 page: "the amount of income-tax determined in accordance with sub-clause (i) shall be reduced by the amount of income-tax determined in accordance with sub-clause (ii) and the sum so arrived at shall be the income-tax in respect of the total income". The departmental Finance Act, 2002 page carries the same sub-clause followed by a proviso: "Provided that the amount of income-tax so arrived at, as reduced by the amount of rebate of income-tax calculated under Chapter VIII-A, shall be increased by a surcharge for purposes of the Union calculated in each case in the manner provided in that Paragraph and the sum so arrived at shall be the income-tax in respect of the total income." The entry threshold and the sum added at the second step are the same figure in each year and move with the year: fifty thousand rupees in the Finance Act, 2002, one lakh sixty thousand in 2011, one lakh eighty thousand in 2012 and two lakh rupees in 2014. None of those is the current figure. The matter was decided on 2014-04-01 by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text). On those facts the CBDT Circulars & Instructions held as follows. Not a judgment. The position is that agricultural income is excluded from total income by section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act and is not charged, but that the annual Finance Act, acting as the Central Act referred to in section 4(1), aggregates net agricultural income exceeding five thousand rupees with the total income for the limited purpose of fixing the rate, by aggregating the two, computing tax on the aggregate at the Paragraph A rates, computing tax at the same rates on the net agricultural income increased by the basic exemption sum, and taking the difference.
The ITAT Ahmedabad reasoned at paragraphs 8.2 to 8.5 that section 4(1) means that while the total income of a person is determined in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, the rate or rates at which income-tax will be paid for any assessment year are stipulated in the Central Act; that in accordance with section 4 the Finance Act has been stipulating those rates each year; and that the Finance Act, 2011 clearly provides under section 2 of Chapter II that the net agricultural income shall be taken into account in the manner provided therein for the purpose of determining the rates of income-tax applicable to the income of the assessee. It concluded that in view of the clear provisions in section 4 of the Act and section 2 of the Finance Act, agricultural income of an assessee has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the rate of tax applicable to his income, and that in the absence of disclosure of agricultural income in the return it could not believe that the parties concerned had generated agricultural income. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "In the cases to which Paragraph A of Part I of the First Schedule applies, where the assessee has, in the previous year, any net agricultural income exceeding five thousand rupees, in addition to total income, and the total income exceeds two lakh rupees, then,—"
It was decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions on 2014-04-01 and is reported as Section 2 of the Finance Act, 2011 as reproduced at para 8.4 of ITA No. 3393/AHD/2014 (ITAT Ahmedabad, 11 December 2018); clause (b)(i) and (ii) of an earlier Finance Act as reproduced in ITAT Jaipur, Shree Cement Limited v. ACIT (28 December 2017); continuing operation confirmed in ITA No. 4003/Mum/2025 (ITAT Mumbai, 8 May 2025). Binding on the department, not on the assessee or the courts. An assessee may rely on a circular that is beneficial to them. A CBDT circular or instruction binds officers of the department but not the assessee and not the courts. Where a circular helps you, you may hold the department to it. Where it hurts you, it cannot override the Act or a judgment. On section 10(1), section 2(1A), section 4, section 4(1), section 115BAC, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It cuts both ways and is cited by both sides. Not a judgment. The position is that agricultural income is excluded from total income by section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act and is not charged, but that the annual Finance Act, acting as the Central Act referred to in section 4(1), aggregates net agricultural income exceeding five thousand rupees with the total income for the limited purpose of fixing the rate, by aggregating the two, computing tax on the aggregate at the Paragraph A rates, computing tax at the same rates on the net agricultural income increased by the basic exemption sum, and taking the difference. It arises in Capital Gains Exemptions, Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section 10(1), section 2(1A), section 4, section 4(1), section 115BAC of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Not applicable — statutory text. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Apply the two entry conditions cumulatively: net agricultural income above five thousand rupees AND total income above the basic exemption amount specified in that sub-section. Do the computation in three steps — tax on (total income + net agricultural income); tax on (net agricultural income + the basic exemption sum); subtract the second from the first — and show the working in the computation you file. Disclose agricultural income in the return even though it is exempt. It is required for the rate computation, and a later claim of undisclosed agricultural income is routinely disbelieved for that reason. If your client is taxed under the concessional regime in section 115BAC rather than under Paragraph A of Part I of the First Schedule, check the corresponding provision in the Finance Act for that year before assuming the same figures apply — I was not able to read the current Finance Act on this pass and take no position on it.
Validity check could not be completed. Validity check could not be completed, and the entry deliberately states no current figure. The mechanism is corroborated on three independent retrievals — a 2018 Tribunal order reproducing section 2 of the Finance Act, 2011, a 2017 Tribunal order reproducing clause (b)(i) and (ii) of an older Finance Act, and a May 2025 Tribunal order confirming that section 2(2) of the Finance Act still speaks of net agricultural income exceeding five thousand rupees. Departmental Finance Act section 2 pages were obtained for 1993, 1997, 2002, 2012, 2013 and 2014, and the mechanism, including the subtraction step in clause (b)(iii) and the surcharge proviso, is taken from those government pages. No Finance Act later than 2014 could be located on the department's /w/section-2 slugs, so the current basic exemption amount, the current surcharge position and the treatment under section 115BAC are all outside what this entry establishes. A later pass must read the Finance Act for the assessment year before any figure is put into a computation. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The Finance Act, 2025 could NOT be retrieved, but Finance Act section 2 pages ARE served by the department under the /w/section-2-<suffix> slugs, and several were read with the instrument name and Year stamp demanded first: /w/section-2-70 is "Finance Acts, 1997" (Year: 1997); /w/section-2-75 is "Finance Acts, 2002" (Year: 2002); /w/section-2-85 is "Finance Acts, 2012" (Year: 2012); /w/section-2-86 is "Finance Acts, 2013" (Year: 2013); /w/section-2-87 is the Finance Act, 2014 (Year: 2014); and /w/section-2-120 is the Finance Act, 1993 (Year: 1993). The slug space is shared with a second, older series — /w/section-2-88 to -100 carry the Finance Acts of 1961 to 1973 including the No. 2 Acts of 1962, 1967 and 1971, /w/section-2-105 the Finance Act, 1978 and /w/section-2-110 the Finance Act, 1983 — and the higher suffixes carry other statutes altogether (/w/section-2-140 the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; /w/section-2-155 the Cost and Works Accountants Act, 1959; /w/section-2-170 the Factories Act, 1948). NO Finance Act later than 2014 was found in the ranges probed, so the current basic exemption amount, the current surcharge position and the position under section 115BAC remain unestablished and no such figure is stated in this entry. The mechanism above is therefore taken from judicial reproductions and is stated WITHOUT the current figures. The opening words and clause (a) of sub-section (2) were read verbatim at paragraph 8.4 of the ITAT Ahmedabad order in Smt. Ramilaben B. Patel v. ITO, Ward-3, Gandhinagar (ITA No. 3393/AHD/2014, 11 December 2018), which reproduces section 2 of the Finance Act, 2011 and therefore carries the then basic exemption of one lakh sixty thousand rupees — that figure is HISTORIC and is not the current figure; I have deliberately not printed it as the operative threshold. Clause (b), sub-clauses (i) and (ii), was read verbatim on a /docfragment/ retrieval from the ITAT Jaipur order in Shree Cement Limited v. ACIT (28 December 2017), which reproduces a still older vintage carrying "fifty thousand rupees"; sub-clause (iii), the subtraction step, was not reproduced in either fragment, but it has since been read verbatim on the departmental Finance Act, 2014 page at /w/section-2-87 and is quoted in the facts above. That the provision remains in force and remains section 2(2) of the Finance Act is confirmed by the ITAT Mumbai in Nik Family Trust v. DCIT (ITA No. 4003/Mum/2025, 8 May 2025, assessment year 2023-24), which states: "Sub section (2) of section 2 of Finance Act speaks of an assessee having net agricultural income exceeding five thousand rupees, in addition to total income, hence, is not relevant for our purpose." That the five thousand rupee floor has been carried forward is supported by an indiankanoon phrase search on the exact words "net agricultural income exceeding five thousand rupees, in addition to total income", which returned the section 2 pages of the Finance Acts of 2012, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020, 2021 and 2023 and of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 — I did not open those pages and do not state any figure from them, and I record that the brief forbids stating a statutory position from an indiankanoon bare-act page. I state NO current basic exemption figure and NO position on how the mechanism operates under section 115BAC. The "decided_on" value of 1 April 2014 is the commencement of the assessment year to which the latest Finance Act obtained on this pass — the Finance Act, 2014 — relates. It is not a decision date, and it is not the date on which partial integration commenced: the mechanism is re-enacted annually and no single commencement date exists for it. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Not a judgment. The position is that agricultural income is excluded from total income by section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act and is not charged, but that the annual Finance Act, acting as the Central Act referred to in section 4(1), aggregates net agricultural income exceeding five thousand rupees with the total income for the limited purpose of fixing the rate, by aggregating the two, computing tax on the aggregate at the Paragraph A rates, computing tax at the same rates on the net agricultural income increased by the basic exemption sum, and taking the difference.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
I sell timber from forest land that we prune, weed and replant. Is that agricultural income?
Must you deduct tax on every payment to a non-resident, just to be safe?
I was paid to stay out of the business. Is the non-compete money capital or income?
The Commissioner wants to revise my assessment. What does he actually have to establish?