“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)

Madhabi Puri Buch, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals) 55, Mumbai

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

ITA 644/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘I’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM

Manish Umed Doshi, Mumbai vs. ACIT - Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 245/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.245/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Manish Umed Doshi, Vs. The Cit(Exemption), 403, Dalamal House, Jamnalal Bajaj Ahmedabad. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabpd3578R

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 23

submitted any proof that the property was vacant during the year and the assessee had not claimed any vacancy allowance as per section 23(1)(c) of the Act. Under these circumstances in the facts of this case the AO's action to adopt gross annual value from the said

Shri Durga Devi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed and that for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 2004/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CA &For Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT, DR

Section 23Section 23(1)(c)

Year 2014-15 based upon the rent of the adjacent property owned by the son of the assessee. Referring to the provisions of section 23(1)(c), ld. AO held that since the property was not let out at any time during the period, the vacancy allowance was not available ... order. It is very apparent from the affidavit tendered in additional evidence that the only ground seeking exemption from Section 23(1)(c) of the Act was that the property was situated at MG Road and same was not regularized so the efforts made to put the property on rent

Mora] Finanz Corporation, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

ITA 155/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 22

annual value of more than one properties, owned by assessee and which admittedly remained vacant throughout previous year would not be assessed under section 23(1)(c) but under section 23(1)(a) and annual value would be determined notionally. The Hon'ble High Court has held as under ... which are more than one, owned by the assessee and which admittedly remained vacant throughout the previous year would not be assessed under section 23(1)(c) but under section 23(1)(a). The annual value would, therefore, be determined notionally as done in the case in hand

Moraj Finanz Corporation, Navi Mumbai vs. Dclt Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

ITA 154/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 22

Moraj Finanz Corporation, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

ITA 153/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 22

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax-23(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Laxmi Finance & Leasing Companies Commercial Premises Co-Op Soc. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1689/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 23(1) V. M/S. Laxmi Finance & Leasing Companies Commercial Premises Room No. 113, 1St Floor Co-Op. Soc., Limited Matru Mandir, Tardev Road C-25, G-Block, Mumbai – 400 007 Laxmi Towers, Near Icici Bank Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aabal0964G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Madhur Agrawal Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Sinha

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

Igi Investments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 5 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7955/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Years: 2013-14 M/S. Igi Investments Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit – 5(2)(1), 702, 7Th Floor, R. No.571, 5Th Floor, The Capital Bkc, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra East, Mk Road, Mumbai- 400 051 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aacci1484R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Satish Mody, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Dinesh Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20 . 07 . 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27 . 07 . 2022 O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Singh, D.R

Section 148Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)Section 24Section 32

property No.1 at Rs.79,41,600/- as assessed in the preceding assessment year 2012-13. The AO has also stated that provision of section 23(1)(c) of the Act was also not applicable to the case of the assessee and assessed the income from house property in case ... that neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has particularly adjudicated the plea of the assessee that its case is covered under section 23(1)(c) and not under section 23(1)(a) of the Act. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. has supported the order

Yash Vardhan Arya, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation) Ward-1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 203/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

beyond the control of the assessee and therefore the benefit of vacancy is available to the assessee as per the provisions of section 23(1)(c) of the Act. It is pertinent to note that even otherwise it may not be always possible to let out the property just after ... 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

Aveo Real Estate Holdings Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 2 (1)(4), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed in terms of paragraph 9

ITA 6852/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak

Section 23(1)(c)

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -4 (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A”) erred in not applying the provisions of section 23(1)(c) of the Act to the property comprised of area 1,88,035 sq.Ft.) 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th floor of Tower ... Leased Property was vacant from 19.10.2012 to 31.12.2012 and therefore, the Appellant is entitled to the benefit of vacancy allowance in terms of Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, for a period of 3 months commencing from 01.01.2013 to 31.03.2013 „Nil‟ rent was received by the Appellant

Saif Ali Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is allowed

ITA 7152/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.K. LalkakaFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(c)Section 23(4)(b)Section 250

Year: 2014-15 6. The Ld. Authorised Representative of the Appellant submitted that the Appellant is entitled to vacancy allowance in terms of Section 23(1)(c) of the Act as the House Property was lying vacant during the Assessment Year 2014-15. He submitted that Hicons Residency Co-operative ... 5811/Mum/2016) held that the Appellant is entitled to vacancy allowance in respect of the House Property in terms of Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. 7. In response, the Ld. Departmental Representative, relying upon the concluding para No. 13 of the decision of the Tribunal in Appellant

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)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर

M/S Netra Software Technologies Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC) (Assessss Is Assessed to Tax With ACIT Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 306/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR), ITAT, Bangalore

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 23(1)(c)Section 24

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Laxmi Finance & Leasing Companies Commercial Premises Cooperative Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4521/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Laxmi Finance & Vs. Acit – 14(1) Leasing Companies, Earnest House, Commercial Premiss Nariman Point, Co-Op Society Ltd., Mumbai – 400 021. Laxmi Towers, Plot No. C-25, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. Pan/Gir No. : Aaajl0006F Appellant .. Respondent M/S. Laxmi Finance & Vs. Acit – 18(2) Leasing Companies, Earnest House, Commercial Premiss Nariman Point, Co-Op Socitey Ltd., Mumbai – 400 021. Laxmi Towers, Plot No. C-25, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. Pan/Gir No. : Aaajl0006F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. P.J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Mehul Jain, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234B

months where as the other 2 are let for periods less than 12 months during the year. Applying the provisions of section 23(1)(c), AO is also directed to allow vacancy allowance in case of those properties which are actually let out only for part of the year

Vimal Kaur, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 871/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhary(Through Video Conferencing) Vimal Kaur Vs. Dcit 23, West Avenue Road, Circle – 2(1)(2) Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi International Taxation New Delhi Pan : Aplpk 3423 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(c)Section 24

during the whole or any part of previous year and non receipt of rent for that period. He had drawn out attention to Section 23(1) (c ), which is to the following effect: “23.(1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed ... submitted that despite furnishing the evidence by the assessee to the AO, the AO has not given the benefit of section 23(1)(c). Similarly CIT(A) had also declined the relief to the assessee. 18. Ld. AR during the course of argument had submitted that Police aid was taken

Surjit Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 870/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarasstt. Year 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sri Prakash Dubey, Sr.DR

Section 24