AZIM HASHAM PREMJI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1323/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 November 2025AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the properties could not be let out due to peculiar circumstances and the demand for rent was negligible. Therefore, the notional rental value estimated by the AO was incorrect, and the principles of Section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act should apply.

What were the facts?

The assessee owned house properties in Coonoor and Mahabaleshwar which remained vacant due to their location in hilly areas, tourist nature of the places, and accessibility issues, compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. The AO, however, notionally estimated rental income for these properties.

What were the issues?

Whether notional rent can be assigned to vacant house properties located in remote hilly areas, and if vacancy allowance under Section 23(1)(c) is applicable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 23(1),Section 23(1C),Section 10(10A),Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huligal, Advocate
For Respondent: Dr. Thejaswi G V, JCIT-DR

PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

These are the appeals filed by the assessee challenging the orders of the NFAC, Delhi dated 11/04/2025 in respect of the A.Ys. 2020-21 and 2021-22. In these appeals the issues raised by the assessee are common and therefore decided to proceed the appeal in ITA No. 1322/Bang/2025 as the lead case. The decision arrived in the appeal relating to A.Y. 2020-21 would apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal relating to A.Y. 2021-22. ITA Nos. 1322 & 1323/Bang/2025

2.

For the sake of convenience, the grounds raised by the assessee for the A.Y. 2020-21 are extr

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 23(1)

All 114 judgments and leading authorities on Section 23(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →