Vivek Jain v. ACIT

337 ITR 74High Court2011#3372 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 366,339 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)
Read the full judgment

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

Sonu Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 14 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5081/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon. & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon.M/S. Sonu Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-14(3)(2), Plot No. 219, Laalasis, 11Th Mumbai Road, Chembur, Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

…appeal of the assessee by observing that in respect of earlier years i.e. A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 the same issue was decided against the assessee by following the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Vivek Jain vs. ACIT [(2011) 337 ITR 74 (AP)]. 5. At the outset, ld.AR submitted that the present issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 2892/MUM/2016 and ITA No. 66/MUM/2017 for the A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 by order dated 19/09/2018 wherein the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. Therefore, ld.AR submitted that…

Dilip Kumar Chowdhary, Howrah vs. ACIT, Circle - 46, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2460/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2460/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dilip Kumar Chowdhary………….…………………………....………………..……………..……….….Appellant 545, G.T. Road (South) 6Th Floor Howrah – 711 101 [Pan : Acdpc 4418 P] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-46, Kolkata……........................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.S. Gupta, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Haldar, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 22Section 23(1)(c)Section 250

…)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) stands modified to this extent. Ground No.1 is thus partly allowed.” 4.2. The ld. CIT(A) has wrongly relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Vivek Jain vs. Asstt. CIT 337 ITR 74. This judgment was prior to the amendment brought in the Act on this issue. 4 I.T.A. No. 2460/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dilip Kumar Chowdhary 5. In view of the above discussion, consistent with the view taken by the Pune Bench of the ITAT in the case of Shri Vikas Keshav Garud vs. ITO (supra), we delete this addition. 6. Ground No. 2,…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal vide ITA No

ITA 6151/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K.J. Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…237 ITR 24(SC); Fed of APCCI v/s State of AP 247 ITR 36(SC); CIT v/s Trivedi 183 ITR 420; Greatway v/s CIT 199 ITR 391; BM Parmar v/s CIT 235 ITR 679; Modipon v/s CIT 247 ITR 40; CIT v/s Rajan 252 ITR 126; CWT v/s Tulsi Dass 256 ITR 73; Vivek Jain v/s ACIT 337 ITR 74 that the courts or the Tribunal cannot extend relief when the legislative intent is otherwise. It was held in Tarulata Shyam v/s CIT (1977) 108 ITR 345, 357 (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. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (Hudco), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal vide ITA No

ITA 5705/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K.J. Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…237 ITR 24(SC); Fed of APCCI v/s State of AP 247 ITR 36(SC); CIT v/s Trivedi 183 ITR 420; Greatway v/s CIT 199 ITR 391; BM Parmar v/s CIT 235 ITR 679; Modipon v/s CIT 247 ITR 40; CIT v/s Rajan 252 ITR 126; CWT v/s Tulsi Dass 256 ITR 73; Vivek Jain v/s ACIT 337 ITR 74 that the courts or the Tribunal cannot extend relief when the legislative intent is otherwise. It was held in Tarulata Shyam v/s CIT (1977) 108 ITR 345, 357 (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…

Sonu Realtors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodita No. 2892 /Mum/2016 & Sonu Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Dcit – 14(3)(2) Plot No. 219, Laalasis, Mumbai 11Th Road, Chembur, Vs. Mumbai 400 071. Pan – Aaacs7073C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. J.P Bairagra Respondent By : Shri Rajat Mittal Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement :19.09.2018 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Present Appeals Filed By The Assessee For A.Y 2011-12 & A.Y 2012-13 Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(A)-22, Mumbai, Dated 22.01.2016 & 27.09.2016. As A Common Issue Is Involved In The Aforementioned Appeals, Thus, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Off Together By Way Of A Consolidate Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y 2011-12. The Assessee Assailing The Order Passed By The Cit(A) Has Raised Before Us The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri. J.P BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(2)Section 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

…termined the „annual value‟ of the property 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 Vs. ACIT (2011) 337 ITR 74 (AP). 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 would duly encompass and take within its sweep cases where the property had remained let o…

Sonu Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2892/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodita No. 2892 /Mum/2016 & Sonu Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Dcit – 14(3)(2) Plot No. 219, Laalasis, Mumbai 11Th Road, Chembur, Vs. Mumbai 400 071. Pan – Aaacs7073C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. J.P Bairagra Respondent By : Shri Rajat Mittal Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement :19.09.2018 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Present Appeals Filed By The Assessee For A.Y 2011-12 & A.Y 2012-13 Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(A)-22, Mumbai, Dated 22.01.2016 & 27.09.2016. As A Common Issue Is Involved In The Aforementioned Appeals, Thus, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Off Together By Way Of A Consolidate Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y 2011-12. The Assessee Assailing The Order Passed By The Cit(A) Has Raised Before Us The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri. J.P BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(2)Section 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

…termined the „annual value‟ of the property 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 Vs. ACIT (2011) 337 ITR 74 (AP). 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 would duly encompass and take within its sweep cases where the property had remained let o…

Sri Paul Christadas Salins, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 853/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 May 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Lokesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem .M, JCIT (DR)
Section 14ASection 23(1)Section 23(1)(c)Section 24aSection 24b

…mained vacant throughout the year and hence, it is seen that the facts of the present case are similar. The Tribunal in that case has also considered the judgement of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of Vivek Jain Vs. ACIT as reported in 337 ITR 74 and even after considering that judgement, it was held in that case that the assessee is eligible for vacancy allowance for whole of the year u/s. 23 (1) (c) of IT Act. Hence respectfully following this Tribunal order rendered in the case of Shri Vikas Keshav Garud vs. ITO (supra) in which the judgement of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court rendere…

Monisha R. Jaising, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7578/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am श्री महाविर स िंग, न्याययक दस्य एििं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा दस्य के मक्ष

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A TharFor Respondent: Shri Ravjisingh Arneja
Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

…contended, is supported by the ratio of the order of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Premsudha Exports P Ltd (110 ITD 158 Mum). In this regard it hasa to be stated that the Andhra Pradesh High Court has taken a contrary view in the case of Vivek Jain vs. ACIT (337 ITR 74 [AP]). The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that the provisions of Sec. 23(1)(c) are attracted if i) property or any part thereof has been let; ii) it has been vacant during the whole or any part of the previous year and iii) owing to such vacancy the actual rent received or receivable is less than the sum referred to in Clause(a). When thes…

Monisha R. Jaising, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7577/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am श्री महाविर स िंग, न्याययक दस्य एििं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा दस्य के मक्ष

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A TharFor Respondent: Shri Ravjisingh Arneja
Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

…contended, is supported by the ratio of the order of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Premsudha Exports P Ltd (110 ITD 158 Mum). In this regard it hasa to be stated that the Andhra Pradesh High Court has taken a contrary view in the case of Vivek Jain vs. ACIT (337 ITR 74 [AP]). The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that the provisions of Sec. 23(1)(c) are attracted if i) property or any part thereof has been let; ii) it has been vacant during the whole or any part of the previous year and iii) owing to such vacancy the actual rent received or receivable is less than the sum referred to in Clause(a). When thes…

Gopalan Enterprises (P) Ltd vs. Addl C.I.T

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 158/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Pradeep, C. AFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 23

…e present case, no actual rent is received or receivable. As against this, learned DR of the revenue placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of 4 IT(TP)A Nos.49 & 97/B/2014 Vivek Jain vs. ACIT as reported in 337 ITR 74 (A. P.). She pointed out that as per this judgment, if the property was not let out at all during the previous year under consideration than there is no question of any vacancy allowance us 23 (1) (c). In rejoinder, learned AR of the assessee submitted that the properties in question were used for business purpose and hence not liable to tax und…

Container Marine Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 7500/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Ms. Nikita AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mathur
Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(c)

…grieved of such addition, assessee preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 5. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) referring to certain decisions, and more specifically, the decision of Hon'ble A.P. High Court in Vivek Jain v/s ACIT, [2011] 337 ITR 74 (AP), held that for attracting provisions of section 23(1)(c), the assessee has to fulfill the conditions imposed therein. He observed, as the assessee has not fulfilled these conditions vacancy allowance in terms of section 23(1)(c), is not allowable. However, as far as determination of ALV by the Assessing Officer is concerned, the learned Commi…

Informed Technologies India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 6467/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu () & Shri Ravish Sood ()

For Appellant: Shri Surinder MehraFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(1)

…hearing along with copy of judgment. d) That in view of the said decision of the ITAT, Mumbai, income from the said property is to be assessed at Nil. e) That the C.I.T.-(A) has erred in referring to the judgment in the case of Vivek Jain vs. ACIT reported in 337 ITR 74. In the present case since as mentioned above, the premises were let upto 4.12.2008 and evidence was filed by the assessee company before C.I.T.-(A) that the appellant company had tried to let out the said premises, the said decision goes in favor of the assessee and the assessing officer had erred in not accepting the said ground of appeal. 3.a)…

Informed Technologies India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 6466/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu () & Shri Ravish Sood ()

For Appellant: Shri Surinder MehraFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(1)

…hearing along with copy of judgment. d) That in view of the said decision of the ITAT, Mumbai, income from the said property is to be assessed at Nil. e) That the C.I.T.-(A) has erred in referring to the judgment in the case of Vivek Jain vs. ACIT reported in 337 ITR 74. In the present case since as mentioned above, the premises were let upto 4.12.2008 and evidence was filed by the assessee company before C.I.T.-(A) that the appellant company had tried to let out the said premises, the said decision goes in favor of the assessee and the assessing officer had erred in not accepting the said ground of appeal. 3.a)…

Sharan Hospitality P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6717/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sharan Hospitality Private Limited Dy. Cit – Circle 9(3) बनाम/ Ground Floor, Gys Infinity, Mumbai Paranjape ‘B’, Scheme, Subhas Road, Vs. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-57 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aagcs 8608 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Priyanka Jain ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Mahondas सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 12.9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 18.9.2012, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009- 10 Vide Order Dated 22.12.2011. 2. The Only Issue Arising In This Appeal Is The Correct Amount At Which The Annual Value In Respect Of The Assessee’S Swami Vivekanand (S.V.) Road, Mumbai Property

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka JainFor Respondent: Shri K. Mahondas
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23

…im, viz. Premsudha Exports (P.) Ltd. (supra); Shankuntala Devi (supra); and Indu Chandra (supra) were also distinguished by the ld. CIT(A) on facts. Before us, reliance was also placed on the date of the decision in the case of Vivek Jain vs. Asst. CIT [2011] 337 ITR 74 (AP), wherein the Hon’ble Court, referring to a number of decisions, including in the case of Liquidator of Mahamudabad Properties (P.) Ltd.(supra), rejected similar contentions as made in the instant case. 6 Sharan Hospitality Private Limited vs. Dy. CIT Discussion 5.1 Prior to its substitution by Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1/4/2002, section 23(1)…

Monisha R. Jaising, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7576/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2008-09 Monisha R. Jaising, Dcit 20/21B, Chand Terraces, St. Central Circle-24 & 26, बनाम/ Andres Road, Bandra (West), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400050 M.K. Raod, Mumbai-400020 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Adrpj4593R

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘एक-सद"य’ "यायपीठ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, Assessment Year: 2008-09 Monisha R. Jaising, DCIT 20/21B, Chand Terraces, St. Central Circle-24 & 26, बनाम/ Andres Road, Bandra (West), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400050 M.K. Raod, Mumbai-400020 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.ADRPJ4593R "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Yogesh Thar Shri A.K.Srivastava CIT-DR & राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Om Prakash Meena-DR 21/06/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing…