“Section 23(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 23Section 23(3)89 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 23(3) is Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT (373 ITR 673), cited in 381 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 23(3)

Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT

373 ITR 673 · 2015 · Supreme Court

381

citing judgments

Income from immovable property, such as unsold flats or shops, held by an assessee as stock-in-trade in their business of acquiring and holding properties is taxable as 'business income' and not 'income from house property'. Consequently, notional annual letting value under Section 23 cannot be attributed to such stock-in-trade.

CIT v. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd.

354 ITR 180 · 2013 · High Court

208

citing judgments

Annual Letting Value (ALV) of unsold stock-in-trade flats/shops held by a real estate developer can be assessed under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as income from house property. This approach was followed by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on this decision.

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. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd.

296 ITR 661 · 2008 · High Court

129

citing judgments

Income from unsold flats held as stock-in-trade by a builder or developer is assessable as business income, not income from house property, for assessment years prior to the insertion of Section 23(5) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Sridev Enterprises

192 ITR 165 · 1991 · High Court

125

citing judgments

Interest expenditure on borrowed funds, especially when used for making advances, should generally be allowed under Section 36(1)(iii) if its nature and business expediency remain consistent with previous assessment years. The character of an outstanding amount at the start of an accounting year is considered the same as at the end of the prior year, reinforcing the rule of consistency.

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.

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.

Judgments citing Section 23(3)

DCIT, Central Circle Ajmer vs. Vijay Granimarmo Private Limited, Naya Ghar Gulab Bari Ajmer

In the result of the cross objection of the assessee in CO No

ITA 648/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H)

Section 143(3)

without reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment under section 23(3). The rule of law on this subject has, in our opinion, been fairly and rightly stated by the Lahore 26 ITA Nos. 647 & 648/JP/2023

DCIT, Central Circle Ajmer vs. Vijay Granimarmo Private Limited, Naya Ghar Gulab Bari Ajmer

In the result of the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 647/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H)

Section 143(3)

Balaji Jewellers, Jaipur vs. ACIT CC -4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

Mills Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1954) 26 ITR 775, may be referred to, in which held: “In making an assessment under Section 23(3) of the Indian Income tax Act, the Income-tax Officer is not fettered by technical rules of evidence and pleadings, and he is entitled ... without reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment under Section 23(3). The rule of law on this subject has been fairly and rightly stated by the Lahore High Court in the case of Seth Gurmukh

Rukmani Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cir.-4 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh

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

M/S. Steecon Infrastructure, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 61/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Steecon Infrastructure Income Tax Officer 1(4) 85, Subhash Nagar, Pal Road, Paota Jodhpur- 242008 Vs. Jodhpur- 342008 Pan No. Acdfs3423Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Piyush Chajed and Mr SumitFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, AR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessed either under section 25(1) prematurely or in the year of assessment; in both cases the procedure of assessment is as under section 23(3) and (4) supplemented by sub-section (5). Section 44 provides an added incident that all persons who were partners at the time of discontinuance

ACIT Circle-28(1), Delhi vs. Sam Overseas, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 169/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Sr. Advocate

Section 195

Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1695/Del/2020 & 169/Del/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “H” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI G. S

Sam Overseas, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle- 24(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1695/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Sr. Advocate

Section 195

Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1695/Del/2020 & 169/Del/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “H” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI G. S

DCIT 1(1), Indore vs. M/S Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd., Indore

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 89/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 144Section 145

makan assessment without reference to any evidence of may material there must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment under section 23(3))" (vii) In the case of CIT vs. J.J. Enterprises reported in 122 Taxman 124 Hombre Supreme Court approving the decision of the lower authorities

Smita Yogesh Parekh, Mumbai vs. ITO 34(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 654/MUM/2023[9820254442]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2023

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Smita Yogesh Parekh, Ito, 405 B Wingh, Kamal Kunj, Ward-34(3)(2), Subhash Road, Villege Parle Vs. Mumbai (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaqpp3494H

For Appellant: Shri A. N. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Jogendra Singh, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 23(3)Section 250Section 25OSection 50C

explain as to why the deemed rent should not be treated in respect of property at Vasai in view of the provision of section 23(3) of the Act. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee the AO proceeded to assess the deemed rent of the house property at Vasari

Shri Suresh Kumar Goyal, 501 Unique Sanghi Apartment Durgapura Jaipur-302018, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle-6, Jaipur, Circle-6

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

ITA 664/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Shri Ashnuth Goyal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Ward -1(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 276/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Him. Thus, The Addition Of Rs. 30,04,864/- So Uphold Deserves To Be Deleted. Shri Ashnuth Goyal Vs Acit, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 10(38)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Shri Arnav Goyal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 275/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Prakash Meena,Addl.CIT

Section 10(38)Section 68

Shah and Sanghavi Developers LLP, Vesu, Surat vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 241/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kiran K. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr- DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 23(3)Section 23(5)

nature of amended section of 23(5) of the Act. 2) The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not appreciating the provisions of section 23(3) of the Act. 3) The appellant reverses the right to add, alter and withdraw any ground(s) of appeal.” 3. Succinct facts ... years has not expired from the end of the year in which BUC was received. 2) No rent to be assumed as per section 23(3) if it is vacant either for part of full of the year – without prejudice to the above and in alternative, it is submitted could

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 28(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the three appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1029/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1029, 1030 & 1031/Mum/2020 (A.Ys: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2010-11) Avinash Narayan Sutar Vs. Ito – 28(1)(2) Plot No. 582, Laxmi Tower No.6, Vashi Niwas, Sector -1, Station, Navi Mumbai- Shiravana, Nerul, Navi 400703. Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent Ito – 28(1)(2) Vs. Avinash Narayan Sutar Tower No.6, Vashi Plot No. 582, Laxmi Station, Navi Mumbai- Niwas, Sector -1, 400703. Shiravana, Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Tulsiyan.ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha.DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

without reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment under section 23(3)." Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court, it is clear that there must be some tangible evidence with the department to make

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)

owner on account of his employment, business or profession, as nil under section 23(2)(b) provided that, in terms of section 23(3)(a), the house or part of the house had not actually been let during the whole or any part of the previous year. As a legal ... fiction is created the word "actually", as used in section 23(3)(c), does not find mention in section 23(1) of the Act. 12. The construction placed on section 23(l)(c), by Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that if there is an intention

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 510/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

that any evidence upon which the department might rely should have been subjected to cross-examination. The procedure for assessment is indicated in. section 23 (3) of the Act." 6.11. Further Hon'ble Murnbai Tribunal in case of GTC Industries Ltd. V. Asstt. CIT reported

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 509/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 508/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 507/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C