← All Phrases

“Section 23(1)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 23Section 23(1)(c)56 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 23(1)(c) is CIT v. Tip Top Typography (368 ITR 330), cited in 161 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 23(1)(c)

CIT v. Tip Top Typography
368 ITR 330 · 2014 · High Court
161
citing judgments

For computing income from house property, the Annual Letting Value (ALV) cannot be arbitrarily estimated by the Assessing Officer, but must be determined based on the Municipal ratable value of the property.

Keshav Mills Ltd. v. CIT
23 ITR 230 · 1953 · Supreme Court
86
citing judgments

Income taxability depends on the real nature of the receipt and actual or constructive receipt of income, not merely on book entries. An amount is only "deemed to be received" if explicitly provided by the Income Tax Act, not by an assessee's unilateral intention.

CIT v. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd.
352 ITR 583 · 2013 · High Court
80
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A for interest expenditure is not justified if an assessee uses its own interest-free funds for investments generating exempt income, and borrowed funds are entirely utilized for business purposes, without evidence of diversion to earn tax-free income.

CIT v. Ajax Products Ltd.
55 ITR 741 · 1965 · Supreme Court
63
citing judgments

A taxing statute must be strictly construed: the subject is not to be taxed unless the charging provision clearly and explicitly imposes the obligation, without room for intendment or implication. There is no equity about a tax, and nothing is to be read into or implied within the language used.

Premsudha Exports (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT
110 ITD 158 · 2008 · ITAT
41
citing judgments

For the purpose of computing income from house property, the annual value under Section 23 must be determined even if the property is vacant or not actually let out, as the statutory phrase "property is let out" does not necessitate actual letting.

Vivek Jain v. ACIT
337 ITR 74 · 2011 · High Court
35
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. P. KhrishnaWarrier
132 ITR 799 · High Court
30
citing judgments

Exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act should not be denied on the basis of the principle of consistency if the facts in the present case are identical to earlier and subsequent assessment years. This applies even when there are allegations of violation of provisions of section 13 of the Act.

CIT v. Harishchandra Gupta
325 ITR 599 · 2010 · High Court
29
citing judgments

The principle of consistency mandates that if an assessee's facts in earlier and subsequent assessment years are identical to the year under consideration, they should not be denied exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act.

Judgments citing Section 23(1)(c)

Pankaj Chhatwal, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-49(1), Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 4142/DEL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 23Section 23(1)(c)Section 250Section 27(1)

assessee and sustaining addition of Rs.4,20,000/- in impugned assessment order of Ld AO are totally unlawful as vacancy allowance as per section 23(1)(c) has been allowed by AO as well as CIT (A) where property no. A-92 Sec-51 is let out in subsequent years

Shri K.G Subbarama Setty, Bangalore vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) Bangalore, C R Building

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 965/BANG/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 127Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

agreement for sale and for this reason he kept the property vacant. We are of the considered opinion that for the application of section 23(1)(c) of the Act, it is not at all relevant as to whether the property was let out in past ... owner for let it out and efforts were also made to let it out, then the properties were covered by provision of section 23(1)(c) of the Act. We are also of the ITA Nos.962 & 963/Bang/2025 K.S. Akhilesh Babu ITA No.964/Bang/2025 K.A. Sujith Chandan ITA No.965/Bang/2025 K.G. Subbarama Setty

K A Sujit Chandan, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Bengaluru.-5(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 964/BANG/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 127Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

agreement for sale and for this reason he kept the property vacant. We are of the considered opinion that for the application of section 23(1)(c) of the Act, it is not at all relevant as to whether the property was let out in past ... owner for let it out and efforts were also made to let it out, then the properties were covered by provision of section 23(1)(c) of the Act. We are also of the ITA Nos.962 & 963/Bang/2025 K.S. Akhilesh Babu ITA No.964/Bang/2025 K.A. Sujith Chandan ITA No.965/Bang/2025 K.G. Subbarama Setty

Azim Hasham Premji, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1323/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huligal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Thejaswi G V, JCIT-DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(c)Section 250

under covid19 pandemic and therefore there was no possibility to let out the properties during that period. The Ld.AR also submitted that section 23(1)(c) would apply to the facts of the present case and prayed to allow the appeals. 6. The Ld.DR relied on the orders

Azim Hasham Premji, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1322/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huligal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Thejaswi G V, JCIT-DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(c)Section 250

under covid19 pandemic and therefore there was no possibility to let out the properties during that period. The Ld.AR also submitted that section 23(1)(c) would apply to the facts of the present case and prayed to allow the appeals. 6. The Ld.DR relied on the orders

Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, Ground No

ITA 1091/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1091/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2021-22 Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta The Dcit बनाम/ B-1001, Juhu Trishul, Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Gulmohar Cross Road No.6 Ahmedabad – 380 015 Jvpd Vile Parle West Mumbai – 400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adfpg 7162 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J. C. Desai, Ca Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 14/12/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-2022. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri J. C. Desai, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 22Section 23(1)(c)Section 24Section 250

deemed rent in respect of five flats situated at Mumbai as against the deemed rent considered Nil as per provisions of section 23(1)(c) of the Act by your Appellant. (b) Your appellant prays that, on the facts and circumstances of the case ... assessee had offered deemed rent on these flats in earlier years; however, for the year under consideration, he reported nil deemed rent under section 23(1)(c) of the Act, claiming that the flats were intended to be let out but remained vacant due to the COVID-19 pandemic

Laxmanji Javanji Dodiya, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Anand

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

ITA 593/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2022-23

Section 144Section 23(1)(c)Section 24Section 54FSection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 6315/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 23(1)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(VA)Section 9

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

ITA 6309/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 23(1)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(VA)Section 9

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

ITA 5445/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

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

ITA 5444/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

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

ITA 5443/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

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

ITA 5442/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

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

Bindumalyam Panduranga Allanharinarayan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 107/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 23Section 250Section 44A

ITA No.107/Bang/2025 Bindumalyam Panduranga Allanharinarayan, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A"BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT

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

ITA 2297/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 270A

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

ITA 1220/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2015-16

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.

For Appellant: Shri. Devendra Jain, Adv. (Virtually)For Respondent: 14.02.2025
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(4)(b)Section 23(5)Section 250

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

ITA 3303/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri. Reepal Tralshawala
Section 143(2)Section 23Section 250Section 54

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

Rajni Chauhan, Agra vs. DCIT Centre Circle, Agra

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 150/AGR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.150/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Smt. Rajni Chauhan Dcit – Central Circle बनाम/ Sec-47, Moti Katra Agra Vs. Agra 282003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aqwpr-3516-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Deepender Mohan (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. Cit Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

For Appellant: Shri Deepender Mohan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AGRA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE

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)

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

ITA 2700/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 22Section 23(1)(c)Section 250

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