“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Ambika Trading Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both assessment years stands partly allowed

ITA 6058/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

provided U/sec 23(1)(c) of the Act as the same was vacant for the "whole year". He placed reliance on Section 23(1)(c) provides that reads as under: "(c) where the property or any part of the property is let and was vacant during the whole

Ambika Trading Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both assessment years stands partly allowed

ITA 6057/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Prabhu Kishore Vallurupalli, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 419/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

record. It is an admitted fact the assessee has declared rental income as per the actual rent received during the impugned assessment year. Section 23(1)(c) of the Act is reproduced below for the purpose of ready reference. “Section 23(1) (a) .... (Db) ... (c) where the property ... expected from year to year. We therefore of the considered view that assessee is entitled to claim the vacancy allowance as per section 23(1)(c) of the Act referred above and direct Ld. AO to delete the addition of Rs.8,21,741/-. Thus, ground no. 3 raised

Vallurupalli Prabhu Kishore, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 366/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Mukesh Kumar, Sonipat vs. ITO, Sonipat

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 4142/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

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 Sanjay Gupta, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 68/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Umaid Singh Bhati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh K Das, Sr. DR

Section 23(1)(c)Section 24

aforesaid properties was taxable, even though they were lying vacant for the whole year and no deduction on account of vacancy allowance under Section 23(1)(c) of the Act Sanjay Gupta vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2012-13 - 4– was allowed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee relied upon several judicial ... precedents in support of the contention that the Assessing Officer ought to have allowed vacancy allowance under Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. Further, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that in respect of the property at Casela Tower (Ahmedabad), the same was given to M/s. Neesa Leisure

M/S. Varun Developers, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 2, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 613/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23(1)(c)Section 24Section 80I

vacant for the entire year and accordingly, the income thereon was to be considered at Rs. Nil in view of the provisions of section 23(1)(c) and hence, the entire addition made by the learned A.O. may kindly be deleted. 5] Without prejudice to the above grounds, the assessee ... were vacant for the entire year and accordingly the income thereon was to be considered at Rs.Nil in view of the provisions of section 23(1)(c) of the IT Act. It was further submitted by LD AR that the case of CIT vs. Ansal Housing & Construction, 72 taxmann.com

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -23(1), Mumbai vs. Laxmi Finance and Leasing Companies Co-Op. Society Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 4233/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 23(1)(a)

argument of the assessee stating that the same does not have any merit, since in his opinion, the meaning of word “let” in section 23(1)(c) cannot be equated with “intended to let” and more so, the intention to let cannot be verified. Accordingly, he held that the assessee ... case does not come under the ambit of section 23(1)(c) of the Act and falls u/s.23(1)(a) of the Act and also directed the ld. AO to calculate the annual value based on the proportionate municipal value of vacant properties. Against this finding, the Revenue

Deputy Commissioner Ofincome Tax -23(1), Mumbai vs. Laxmi Finance and Leasing Company Co-Op. Society Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4232/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Section 23(1)(a)

2 ITA No.4232/Mum/2023 & others M/s. Laxmi Finance and Leasing Company Co-operative Society Ltd., Maharashtra-400 012 BKC, Bandra East

Arti Sareen, New Delhi vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2087/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. Aditi Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 154(2)Section 23

clear directions of the ld. DRP at para 4.4.3, the Assessing Officer has not considered the clauses of Section 23(1)(b) and Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The ld. DR fairly submitted that the matter must be restored to the Assessing Officer to respectfully abide

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2731/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Dcit, Vs Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ugf-15, Indraprastha Building, 21, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca0377R Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

vacant for the whole of the previous year, the annual letting value thereof shall be taken to be nil in view of section 23(1)(c), on the ground that since the properties were held by the assessee as stock in trade and not for the purpose of letting ... vacancy allowance' provided under section 23(1)(c) of the Act could not be claimed. The Court also rejected the contention of the assessee that sub- section (5) inserted under section 23 of the Act, to provide for determination of notional ALV in case of real estate developers

Sunil Ramnarayan Mantir, Jalgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, 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)

section 23(1)(a) to the property at Devs Arcade Mall, Ahmedabad owned by the appellant without appreciating that the provisions of section 23(1)(c) were applicable on the facts of the present and therefore, the addition made by the A.O. u/s 23(1)(a) was not justified ... therefore, even if it is assumed that the said property was vacant for the whole of the current year, still the provisions of section 23(1)(c) were AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18 attracted in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble ITAT, Pune in M/s. Classic Citi

Sunil Ramnarayan Mantri, Jalgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, 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)

ACIT, Circle-6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Sameer Kishore Koticha, Mumbai

ITA 545/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal

Section 23(1)(c)

erred in holding that deeming provision of law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in holding that deeming provision of Section 23(1)(c) of the Act is not applicable in the case of Section 23(1)(c) of the Act is not applicable in the case of Section 23

Mack Star Marketing Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1812/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 23

decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court is for the provisions prior to the year 2001 and after introduction of section 23(1)(c) of the Act the assessee is eligible for vacancy allowance. Therefore, if the rental income has been taxed then the assessee is equally eligible ... vacancy allowance as per section 23(1)(c) of the Act for the vacant commercial units in Kaledonia Project. Considering the facts in the light of the relevant provisions of Act, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ₹.2,69,87,480/-. This ground is allowed

Mack Star Marketing Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1709/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 23

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

Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the same. 3. As regards the first house: a. The Ld. Officers below misinterpreted the provisions of Section 23(1)(c) and failed to appreciate the application of Section 23(1)(c) to the present case. Amanda Joy Puravankara, Bengaluru Page ... taken as the annual value of the property in order to compute the income from house property as provided in section 23(1)(c) of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and the grounds of appeal Nos.5, 6 & 7 raised by the assessee

Bharat Dewakinandan Agarwal, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-13, 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

year shall be calculated as per the provisions of section 23(1)(a) of the Act and further held non-applicability of section 23(1)(c) of the Act. In view of the same, held orders in the case of Shri Vikas Keshav Garud in ITA No. 747/PUN/2014

Kanti Thermo Equip Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3039/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T. Varkey (Jm)

Section 23Section 23(1)(c)Section 23(4)Section 24Section 57

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “E” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Aby T. Varkey (JM

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)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM &Shri Manomohan Das, JM ITA No.23/Coch/2023