Vivek Jain v. ACIT

337 ITR 74High Court2011#3418 most cited

What is Vivek Jain v. ACIT authority for?

If a property is not let out at all, notional income must be computed, and the benefit of section 23(1)(c) (vacancy allowance) cannot be extended. However, section 23(1)(c) can apply to properties let out for two or more years that remain vacant for the entire previous year.

35

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Vivek Jain v. ACIT · section 23(1)(c) · section 23(1)(a) · annual letting value · vacancy allowance · notional income · property not let out · property vacant

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(c)Section 115BBGSection 115JBSection 115PSection 139(1)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)

Issues it is cited on

section 23(1)(c)section 23(1)(a)section 23(1)annual valueannual letting valuesection 22section 23commissioner (appeals)previous yearsection 143(3)indiacompany

Judgments citing Vivek Jain v. ACIT

DCM SHRIRAM INDUSTRIS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 2166/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 14ASection 80Section 92C

…as follows: -  CIT v Kasturi237 ITR 24 (SC);  Fed of APCCI v State of AP 247 ITR 36 (SC);  CIT v Trivedi 183 ITR 420;  Greatway v CIT 199 ITR 391;  BM Parmar v CIT 235 ITR 679;  Modipon v CIT 247 ITR 40;  CWT v TulsiDass 256 ITR 73;  Vivek Jain v ACIT 337 ITR 74 ;  Rajasthan SEB v DCIT 200 ITR 434 33. Another issue connected with the above is whether the receipts from RECs, being in the nature of capital receipts, will form part of book profit computed under section 115JB of the Act? 34. The ld. AR submitted that the RECs being in the nature of the capital receipts shall not form part of book profit to…

CLASSIC MALL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5320/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR &
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(a)

…out at all, during the year. According to him, question of vacancy allowance arises only if unit is let out as mentioned in section 23(1)(c). He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vivek Jain vs. ACIT [2011] 337 ITR 74 (AP). According to him, in the said decision, it is held that if property is not let out then notional income has to be shown. He thus, rejected the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to compute the notional rent. For this, he stated that assessee is not covered by any Rent Control Act and therefore question of standard rent does not apply.…

NAVBHARAT POTTERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above\nterms

ITA 2700/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 23(1)(c)Section 250

…rmined the „annual\nvalue" of the property at Nil by taking recourse to Sec. 23(1)(c) of the „Act".\n8. We may further observe that the CIT(A) had misconceived the judgment of the Hon'ble\nHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vivek Jain Vs. ACIT (2011) 337 ITR 74 (AP).\nWe find that in the said judgment the Hon'ble High Court in the concluding Para 14 & 15\nhad observed that though the benefit of computing the „ALV“ u/s 23(1)(c) could not be\nextended to a case where the property was not let out at all, however the same would duly\nencompass and take within its sweep cases where the property had remained l…

SUNIL RAMNARAYAN MANTIR,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 206-17

ITA 92/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

…be availed where a property was not let out during the year, irrespective of the ‘intention to let such a property’. The Ld. AO extensively reproduced the decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Vivek Jain Vs. ACIT reported in (2011) 337 ITR 74 (AP) in para 3.3 in AY 2016-17 and in para 4.4 in AY 2017-18 of the assessment order. 3.5 Relying on the decision in the case of Vivek Jain (supra) and holding that the Mall was not rented, hence vacancy allowance is not admissible to the assessee, the Ld. AO proceeded to determine the annual value of property at Rs.6,29,041/- per month and worke…

SUNIL RAMNARAYAN MANTRI,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 206-17

ITA 91/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

…be availed where a property was not let out during the year, irrespective of the ‘intention to let such a property’. The Ld. AO extensively reproduced the decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Vivek Jain Vs. ACIT reported in (2011) 337 ITR 74 (AP) in para 3.3 in AY 2016-17 and in para 4.4 in AY 2017-18 of the assessment order. 3.5 Relying on the decision in the case of Vivek Jain (supra) and holding that the Mall was not rented, hence vacancy allowance is not admissible to the assessee, the Ld. AO proceeded to determine the annual value of property at Rs.6,29,041/- per month and worke…

AMANDA JOY PURAVANKARA ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(c)Section 234CSection 250

…pation of same by assessee, ALV of said property would be determined under section 23(1)(c)”. 3.2 While adjudicating the above issue, the Tribunal considered the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vivek Jain Vs. ACIT reported in 337 ITR 74 (2011) wherein observed as under: “In this regard we are further of the view that the CIT(A) had misconceived the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vikas Jain (supra), and on a perusal of the said judgment therein find that the Hon'ble High Court in the concluding Para 14 & 15 had though concluded that the benefit…

BHARAT DEWAKINANDAN AGARWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-13, PUNE., PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 884/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24

…d the same and observed that, subsequently, the Pune Tribunal vide order dated 07-06-2022 in the case of Arihant Patni in ITA No. 2695/PUN/2016 for A.Y. 2013-14, following the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh the case of Vivek Jain reported in 337 ITR 74 (A.P.) and the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Sushma Singla reported in 76 taxmann.com 349 (P. & H.), held rent for the assessee’s property shall be calculated as per the provisions of section 5 ITA No.884/PUN/2023, A.Y. 2016-17 23(1)(a) of the Act, even if the claim of nil ALV u/s. 23(1)(c) of the Act is made on the grou…

M/S PERINGATTU HEALTH FOUNDATION PRIVATE,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 2(3), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 23/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathi Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 12Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24(1)(b)

…ceipt of any rent for the seventh (top) floor of the building inasmuch as no rent was received for the same, either during the current year or even the preceding years, and which informs the AO’s order relying on the decision in Vivek Jain v. Asst. CIT [2011] 337 ITR 74 (AP). The basis for the acceptance of the assessee’s claim in first appeal for the earlier years is the non-applicability of the said decision, stated to be inapplicable to commercial properties, as against the decision by the Tribunal in Premsudha Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. 3 Peringattu Health Foundation Private Ltd. v. ITO Asst. CIT [2008] 110 ITD 15…

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 131/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…3 Taxman 44/[2001] 247 ITR 40 (Delhi); CIT vs. M.S.S. Rajan [2002] 120 Taxman 680/[2001] 252 ITR 126 (Mad.); CWT vs. P a g e 15 | 52 OPGC Tulsi Dass [2002] 123 Taxman 790/256 ITR 73 (Raj.); Vivek Jain vs. Asstt. CIT [2011] 14 taxmann.com 146/202 Taxman 499/337 ITR 74 (AP) that the courts or the Tribunal cannot extend relief when the legislative intent is otherwise. It was held in Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 345 (SC) that once it is shown that the case of the assessee comes within the letter of the law, he must be taxed, however, great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind. Moreover, it was…

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 130/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…3 Taxman 44/[2001] 247 ITR 40 (Delhi); CIT vs. M.S.S. Rajan [2002] 120 Taxman 680/[2001] 252 ITR 126 (Mad.); CWT vs. P a g e 15 | 52 OPGC Tulsi Dass [2002] 123 Taxman 790/256 ITR 73 (Raj.); Vivek Jain vs. Asstt. CIT [2011] 14 taxmann.com 146/202 Taxman 499/337 ITR 74 (AP) that the courts or the Tribunal cannot extend relief when the legislative intent is otherwise. It was held in Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 345 (SC) that once it is shown that the case of the assessee comes within the letter of the law, he must be taxed, however, great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind. Moreover, it was…

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 64/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…3 Taxman 44/[2001] 247 ITR 40 (Delhi); CIT vs. M.S.S. Rajan [2002] 120 Taxman 680/[2001] 252 ITR 126 (Mad.); CWT vs. P a g e 15 | 52 OPGC Tulsi Dass [2002] 123 Taxman 790/256 ITR 73 (Raj.); Vivek Jain vs. Asstt. CIT [2011] 14 taxmann.com 146/202 Taxman 499/337 ITR 74 (AP) that the courts or the Tribunal cannot extend relief when the legislative intent is otherwise. It was held in Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 345 (SC) that once it is shown that the case of the assessee comes within the letter of the law, he must be taxed, however, great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind. Moreover, it was…

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ORISSA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 288/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…3 Taxman 44/[2001] 247 ITR 40 (Delhi); CIT vs. M.S.S. Rajan [2002] 120 Taxman 680/[2001] 252 ITR 126 (Mad.); CWT vs. P a g e 15 | 52 OPGC Tulsi Dass [2002] 123 Taxman 790/256 ITR 73 (Raj.); Vivek Jain vs. Asstt. CIT [2011] 14 taxmann.com 146/202 Taxman 499/337 ITR 74 (AP) that the courts or the Tribunal cannot extend relief when the legislative intent is otherwise. It was held in Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 345 (SC) that once it is shown that the case of the assessee comes within the letter of the law, he must be taxed, however, great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind. Moreover, it was…

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 267/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…3 Taxman 44/[2001] 247 ITR 40 (Delhi); CIT vs. M.S.S. Rajan [2002] 120 Taxman 680/[2001] 252 ITR 126 (Mad.); CWT vs. P a g e 15 | 52 OPGC Tulsi Dass [2002] 123 Taxman 790/256 ITR 73 (Raj.); Vivek Jain vs. Asstt. CIT [2011] 14 taxmann.com 146/202 Taxman 499/337 ITR 74 (AP) that the courts or the Tribunal cannot extend relief when the legislative intent is otherwise. It was held in Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 345 (SC) that once it is shown that the case of the assessee comes within the letter of the law, he must be taxed, however, great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind. Moreover, it was…

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 175/CTK/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…3 Taxman 44/[2001] 247 ITR 40 (Delhi); CIT vs. M.S.S. Rajan [2002] 120 Taxman 680/[2001] 252 ITR 126 (Mad.); CWT vs. P a g e 15 | 52 OPGC Tulsi Dass [2002] 123 Taxman 790/256 ITR 73 (Raj.); Vivek Jain vs. Asstt. CIT [2011] 14 taxmann.com 146/202 Taxman 499/337 ITR 74 (AP) that the courts or the Tribunal cannot extend relief when the legislative intent is otherwise. It was held in Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 345 (SC) that once it is shown that the case of the assessee comes within the letter of the law, he must be taxed, however, great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind. Moreover, it was…

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 173/CTK/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…3 Taxman 44/[2001] 247 ITR 40 (Delhi); CIT vs. M.S.S. Rajan [2002] 120 Taxman 680/[2001] 252 ITR 126 (Mad.); CWT vs. P a g e 15 | 52 OPGC Tulsi Dass [2002] 123 Taxman 790/256 ITR 73 (Raj.); Vivek Jain vs. Asstt. CIT [2011] 14 taxmann.com 146/202 Taxman 499/337 ITR 74 (AP) that the courts or the Tribunal cannot extend relief when the legislative intent is otherwise. It was held in Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 345 (SC) that once it is shown that the case of the assessee comes within the letter of the law, he must be taxed, however, great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind. Moreover, it was…

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 84/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…3 Taxman 44/[2001] 247 ITR 40 (Delhi); CIT vs. M.S.S. Rajan [2002] 120 Taxman 680/[2001] 252 ITR 126 (Mad.); CWT vs. P a g e 15 | 52 OPGC Tulsi Dass [2002] 123 Taxman 790/256 ITR 73 (Raj.); Vivek Jain vs. Asstt. CIT [2011] 14 taxmann.com 146/202 Taxman 499/337 ITR 74 (AP) that the courts or the Tribunal cannot extend relief when the legislative intent is otherwise. It was held in Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 345 (SC) that once it is shown that the case of the assessee comes within the letter of the law, he must be taxed, however, great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind. Moreover, it was…

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 114/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…3 Taxman 44/[2001] 247 ITR 40 (Delhi); CIT vs. M.S.S. Rajan [2002] 120 Taxman 680/[2001] 252 ITR 126 (Mad.); CWT vs. P a g e 15 | 52 OPGC Tulsi Dass [2002] 123 Taxman 790/256 ITR 73 (Raj.); Vivek Jain vs. Asstt. CIT [2011] 14 taxmann.com 146/202 Taxman 499/337 ITR 74 (AP) that the courts or the Tribunal cannot extend relief when the legislative intent is otherwise. It was held in Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 345 (SC) that once it is shown that the case of the assessee comes within the letter of the law, he must be taxed, however, great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind. Moreover, it was…

ASFA TECHNOLOGIES & BPO PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1893/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Hema Bhupal, JCITFor Respondent: 26.07.2022
Section 119Section 119(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(c)

…the Income Tax Act, 1961, but not as per provisions of section 23(1)(a) of the Act. The learned A.R for the assessee further referring to various decisions and also decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Mr. Vivek Jain Vs ACIT, 337 ITR 74, submitted that the issue is in favour of the assessee, because in the said judgement property was not let out at all and it became vacant throughout the year and in that context, it was held that when the property is not let out and became vacant for whole or any part of the year, then annual letting value of the property should be computed as…

SUMAN P KHURANA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed accordingly

ITA 2415/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2415/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Suman P. Khurana बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-3(2) Room No.402, 4Th Floor, 501, Raheja Centre, Free Press Vs. Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Mumbai-400021. Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.S स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahpk0190Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Shekhar Gupta Revenue By: Shri Hoshang B. Irani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -51, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Estimating The Annual Value Of The Property At Maker Chambers Iv, Nariman Point, Mumbai At Rs.82,86,301/- As Against Nil Declared By The Assessee & Denying The Exemption Claimed U/S 23(1)(C) By The Assessee. A.Y. 2012-13 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Estimating The Value Of The Property At Gujranwala Town, Delhi At Rs.6,60,000/- As Against Nil Declared By The Assessee & Denying The Exemption Claimed U/S 23(1)(C) By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

…perty at Nil by taking recourse to Sec. 23(1)(c) of the 'Act'. 8. We may further observe that the CIT(A) had misconceived the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vivek Jain v. Asstt. CIT [2011] 14 taxmann.com 146/202 Taxman 499/337 ITR 74. We find that in the said judgment the Hon'ble High Court in the concluding Para 14 & 15 had observed that though the benefit of computing the 'ALV u/s 23(1)(c) could not be extended to a case where the property was not let out at all, however the same 10 A.Y. 2012-13 would duly encompass and take within its sweep cases where the property had rem…

JANAK KUMARI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-59(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 5696/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri C. S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 23Section 23(1)(a)

…was a subsequent decision, is unjustified. In doing so, the Id. CIT(A) had overlooked the fact that the Hon'ble ITAT Pune, while deciding the case of Vikas Keshav Garud (supra) had taken into consideration the decision of High Court in the case of Vivek Jain [337 ITR 74], and also the settled law that the decision favourable to the assessee should be followed. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 4. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the assessee's ground that "In any case, the deemed rental income should not had been estimated in excess of the rental value, as per the municipal corporation of Delhi", with the remarks "Thu…

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2