“Section 23(1)(c)”

CAPACITE INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

rent out the flats but was unable to get the tenants for the full period. The assessee further contends that as per section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides for calculation of Annual Value, where the property or any part of the property ... then the amount so received or receivable by the assessee shall be deemed to be the annual value. Section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 reads as under: ITA No. 6315 & 6309/Mum/2024 CapaciteInfraprojects Limited; A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 23. (1) For the purposes of section

CAPACITE INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2) MUMBAI , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

rent out the flats but was unable to get the tenants for the full period. The assessee further contends that as per section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides for calculation of Annual Value, where the property or any part of the property ... then the amount so received or receivable by the assessee shall be deemed to be the annual value. Section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 reads as under: ITA No. 6315 & 6309/Mum/2024 CapaciteInfraprojects Limited; A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 23. (1) For the purposes of section

HERCULES HOISTS LIMITED,RAIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

contentions of the learned Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) are accepted, the appellant is entitled to deduction for vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c) of the Act as the said property remained vacant throughout the year. Without prejudice to the above, t is submitted that the income from house

HERCULES HOISTS LIMITED,RAIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

contentions of the learned Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) are accepted, the appellant is entitled to deduction for vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c) of the Act as the said property remained vacant throughout the year. Without prejudice to the above, t is submitted that the income from house

HERCULES HOISTS LIMITED,RAIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

contentions of the learned Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) are accepted, the appellant is entitled to deduction for vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c) of the Act as the said property remained vacant throughout the year. Without prejudice to the above, t is submitted that the income from house

HERCULES HOISTS LIMITED,RAIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

contentions of the learned Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) are accepted, the appellant is entitled to deduction for vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c) of the Act as the said property remained vacant throughout the year. Without prejudice to the above, t is submitted that the income from house

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shrisaktijit Dey, Vice-And Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Classic Mall Development Company Vs. Acit, Limited, Circle – 6(2)(1), C/O Market City Resources Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Ground Floor, R. R. Hosiery Building, Shree Laxmi Woolen Mills Estate, Mahalaxmi - 400011 Pan/Gir No: Aaccc7309K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Vijay Mehta, Ca Respondent By Shri Rajendra Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/05/2025

lack of competitive customers. Such vacant properties were leased out in the subsequent year. The assessee contended that as per the provisions of section 23(1)(c) of the Act, the rent received or receivable during the year may be Nil due to vacancy for the whole year under consideration ... basis of expected reasonable rate. He held that the facts of the assessee are not covered by the provisions of section 23(1)(c) of the Act and falls within the ambit of section 23(1)(a) of the Act. He computed the gross annual value at Rs.53

RAMESH DUNGARSHI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX, CIRCLE-3, , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Girish Agarwal, Am Ramesh Dungarshi Shah Deputy Commissioner Of Income 108, Shreedhar Apartment, Maulana Tax, Circle – 3, Kalyan Vs. 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Murbad Azad Road, Dombivali, East, Thane – 421201. Road, Kalyan West – 421301. Pan/Gir No. Aavps0931K (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Devendra Jain, Adv. (Virtually) : Shri. Asif Karmali (Sr. Dr) Respondent By : 14.02.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2015-16. 2. It Is Observed That The Assessee Has Filed This Present Appeal With A Delay Of 47 Days Beyond The Period Of Limitation For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condoning The Delay Along With The Reasons Specified For The Delay. After Hearing The Rival Contentions, We Deem It Fit To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal For The Reason That There Was ‘Sufficient Cause’ & Bonafide Reasons For The Delay. Delay Condoned.

said decision is cited herein under for ease of reference: “9. Furthermore there is no dispute that the effect of the amendment, inserting Section 23(1)(c), would not be to change the incidence of taxability of the properties held as stock in trade. Therefore, this Court's finding that ... income from "business or profession", in its judgement dated 31.10.2012, would be good law, even in view of the insertion of Section 23(1)(c). That being the position, in the assessee's case, the properties held as stock in trade will be taxable under the notional annual letting value

SMT. TEJAL KAUSHAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 25(1)(5), MUMBAI

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

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM Smt

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

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

annual value of the vacant units. The only issue involved is whether these vacant eight units were eligible for vacancy allowance, as per section 23(1)(c) or are to be taxed u/s.23(1)(a). While adjudicating the issue, ld. CIT(A) laid sole emphasis on requirement of property ... emphasis supplied by us by underline] 5.1. Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 01.04.2002 inserted clause (c) in section 23(1). Under the amended section 23(1)(c), where the property, or any part thereof is let and was vacant during the whole or any part of the previous year and, owing

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

opinion that the annual let out value of the\ndeemed rent at flats was not considered in terms of section 23(1)(c) of\nthe Act and the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was on sound\nfooting and does not need any interference. Regarding addition ... which was vacant throughout the year has been excluded\nfrom the purview of computation of income of house property under the\nprovisions of section 23(1)(c) of the Act is not correct and is contrary to\njudgment of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case