“Section 23(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 23Section 23(2)119 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 23(2) is Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ld v. DCIT (23 Taxmann.com 265), cited in 147 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 23(2)

Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ld v. DCIT

23 Taxmann.com 265 · 2012 · High Court

147

citing judgments

The rule of consistency does not override the correct application of law and should not be applied if it leads to an anomalous outcome.

CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.

341 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court

108

citing judgments

The Legislature abolished terminal depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) and the taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2), replacing these provisions with the requirement to reduce sale proceeds of depreciable assets from the block of assets.

Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

386 ITR 500 · 2016 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

If an assessee company's main business object is to acquire and rent out properties, the rental income derived is taxable as 'Profits and gains of business or profession', rather than 'Income from house property', as the nature of the activity constitutes a business.

CIT v. Moni Kumar Subba

333 ITR 38 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

Notional interest on an interest-free security deposit cannot be considered as actual or deemed rent under Section 23(1) of the Act. For determining Annual Letting Value (ALV) under Section 23(1)(a), it must be in accordance with municipal laws, considering extraneous circumstances, but not exceeding the standard rent as per rent control legislation.

CIT v. Bar Council of Maharashtra

130 ITR 28 · 1981 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

An organization’s purpose qualifies as 'general public utility' under section 2(15) if its primary objective is charitable, even if it incidentally benefits a specific group or generates some profit, provided the dominant motive is not profit-making. Such an entity is eligible for exemptions under the Act.

CIT v. Gurnam Singh

327 ITR 278 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

For capital gains exemption under Section 54F, the new residential house is not required to be purchased exclusively in the assessee's own name; acquisition in joint names or in the name of a spouse qualifies for the exemption. This principle also applies to Section 54 due to their pari materia nature.

Mrs. Shiela Kaushish v. CIT

131 ITR 435 · 1981 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Income-tax authorities cannot add notional interest on a tenant's deposit to the income from a house property, as there is no provision for this in Sections 22 or 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The annual value of a house property is determined by specific provisions within these sections, and not by hypothetical calculations.

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.

Judgments citing Section 23(2)

Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Sakariya, Rajkot vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.318/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Sakariya The Pr.Commissioner Of बनाम At Khajuri Gundala Income Tax-1, Rajkot. Post Station: Vavdi Vs. Amarnagar, Khajuri Gundala. Pan : Aslps 7027 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 263

instead of in the year of transfer of the capital asset. The court consideredthe provisions of sections 23(1), 23(1-A) and section 23(2) of the Act as well as section 28 and section 34 ofthe Act of 1894 and observed that section 23(1-A) was introduced ... awarded by the Collector. The compensation awarded by the court includes theadditional compensation awarded under section 23(1-A) and the solatium under section 23(2) of the said Act.This award of interest is not mandatory but is left to the discretion of the court. It was further held that

Chandra Bros., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 37(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1572/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 145(2)Section 250Section 44A

above sum was deducted on the ground that it was not assessable either as revenue or capital. The ITO issued a notice under section 23(2) of the 1922 Act on the same day viz., 10-4-1962 posting the hearing for the same day and completed the assessment also

Karam Vir Yadav, Gurgaon vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC

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

ITA 2605/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmakaramvir Yadav, Vs. Assessing Officer, 1135, Sector 46, Nfac, Delhi. Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Abipy5863E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ranjan Chopra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 Date Of Order : 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 29.03.2024 For Assessment Year 2020-21 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Assessee Company, 1961. 2. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Of The Act, So Much So That, The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Do Not Satisfy The Statutory Twin Conditions Prescribed Under Section 263 Of The Act, Viz., (I) That The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28

Court. The provisions of section 28 and 34 are very clearly classified as interest. The provisions of section 23(1A) and section 23(2) do not refer to said amount as interest. After discussing section 23(1A) in detail, ld. PCIT while concluding at para 66 of the order treated

ITO, Ward-1(1), Faridabad vs. Chaman, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2774/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Chaman, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), H. No. 437, Sector-9, Faridabad Faridabad Pan: Bfapd6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.103/Del/2024 [Arising Out Of Ita No.2774/Del/2024] Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chaman, H. No. 437, Sector-9, Ward-1(1), Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad Pan: Bfapd6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Gaurav, Adv. Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No. 2774/Del/2024 & Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 103/Del/2024 For Assessment Year 2017- 18, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The

Section 147Section 250(4)

case of Ghanshyam Dass (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in unequivocal terms that the additional amount u/s 23(1A), solatium under section 23(2) and interest on excess compensation u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act form part of enhanced compensation u/s 45(5)(b) and, therefore

Percival Joseph Pereira, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (It) -3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4662/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(5)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

benefit of additional component of 12% p. a. under section 23(1)(A) of the Act as well as solatium under section 23(2) and also the interest under section 28 of the Act in addition to the market value of the lands….. …..3. The Opponent shall also pay interest

Percival Joseph Pereira, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (It)-3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4661/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(5)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

Raniwala Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Cir-6, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 10/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Nikhilesh Kataria, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 10BSection 10B(8)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80J

assessee under the provisional assessment under section 23B of the 1922 Act, was to be deducted from the amount of tax determined under section 23(2) of that Act in order to determine the amount of tax on which the computation of the penalty was to be based

Times Internet Limited (Representative Assessee of Willow Tv International Ltd), New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2239/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Times Internet Ltd. Vs. Dcit, (Representative Assessee Of New Delhi Willow Tv International Ltd.), Express Building, 9-10 Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aabct1559M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Sh. Shaurya, Ca Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 163Section 246

Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, it was not necessary for the validity of a notice calling for a return of income under section 23(2), where it is served upon a person as the agent of a non-resident under section 43, that it should have been preceded not only

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)

during the year is not to be taken as a pre-requisite for bringing the case of assessee within the sweep of section 23(2)(c), as long as property is let in the earlier period and remains vacant for the whole year under consideration which assessee continues to hold

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1(1)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Aver Software Technologies Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4333/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Krishan Pal Singh HUF, Jaipur vs. Assessing Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1268/JPR/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

For Appellant: Shri N. K. Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28

liable to be taxed under section 45(5) in year of receipt- Held, yes - Whether additional amount under section 23(1A) solatium under section 23(2) and Interest on excess compensation under section 28 of Land Acquisition act form part of enhanced compensation under section 45(5) in year

Tatiparti Satyanarayana, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 357/VIZ/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.357/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Tatiparti Satyanarayana V. Ito – Ward – 1(1) D.No. 47-15-10, Shop No. 201A Income Tax Office V.R.C. Complex, Dwaraka Nagar Pratyakshakar Bhavan Visakhapatnam – 530016 Mvp Double Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Acgpt5353F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 23(2)

impugned assessment year, assessee has wrongly declared in return of income which is erroneous and needs to be deleted. Ld.AR also referred to section 23(2) of the Act stating that annual value of the house which is in occupation of Page No. 3 I.T.A.No.357/VIZ/2024 Tatiparti Satyanarayana the owner ... property shall be deemed to the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let out from year to year. However, section 23(2) of the Act specifies that where the property consists of a house or part of a house which is in the occupation

Cotha Vinod Hayagriv, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 84/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudhan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 108ASection 132Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)Section 250

rent received from the son of the appellant is not obligatory but out of responsibility and consequently as per the provisions of section 23(2) of the Act, the annual value ought to be taken as nil on the facts and circumstances of the case. . ITA No.81 - 84/Bang/2024 Page

Cotha Vinod Hayagriv, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 83/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudhan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 108ASection 153ASection 22Section 23(2)Section 250

Cotha Vinod Hayagriv, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 82/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudhan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 108ASection 132Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)Section 250

Cotha Vinod Hayagriv, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 81/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudhan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 108ASection 132Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)Section 250

Vachaspati Sharma, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1180/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vachaspati Sharma Vs Ito Village – Hayatpur Garhi Ward-4 Harsaru, Hayatpur, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan No.Fnqps2021R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate Sh. K.L. Pahwa, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 Order Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 18Section 234BSection 234DSection 28Section 45(5)Section 56

award of compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Court may also award additional amount under Section 23(1-A), solatium under Section 23(2) and interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act to the assessee apart from market value of land on the date of acquisition forming ... case award a sum of 30 per cent on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition. This is under section 23(2) of the 1894 Act. In short, section 23(2) talks about solatium. Award of solatium is mandatory. Similarly, payment of additional amount under section

The Kumar Family Trust, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Delhi

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

ITA 2776/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)

prejudice to the preceding grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of Section 23(2) of the Act, without correctly appreciating the fact that the beneficiaries of the assessee Trust were all individuals and therefore the status ... benefit of the member-individuals and therefore they ought to have held that the assessee Trust was entitled to claim benefit of Section 23(2) of the Act for each house property held by it qua each individual-member of the assessee Trust. 5. For that on the facts

The Kumar Family Trust, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Delhi

ITA 2775/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)

The Kumar Family Trust, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

ITA 2774/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)