Which cases are most cited on Section 23(4)?

Keshav Mills Ltd. v. CIT (23 ITR 230) — 86 citing judgments; CIT v. Bhaskar Mitter (73 Taxmann 437) — 52 citing judgments; Smitaben N. Ambani v. CWT (323 ITR 104) — 44 citing judgments; CIT v. Sane & Doshi Enterprises (377 ITR 165) — 38 citing judgments; CIT v. Gundecha Builders (102 Taxmann.com 27) — 31 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss Section 23(4)?

BharatTax indexes 87 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss Section 23(4) (Section 23(4)).

← All Phrases

“Section 23(4)”

Q: What is the leading case on Section 23(4)?

Keshav Mills Ltd. v. CIT (23 ITR 230) is the decision most relied on for Section 23(4), cited in 86 judgments on BharatTax. 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.

Section References (mined)Section 23Section 23(4)87 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 23(4) is Keshav Mills Ltd. v. CIT (23 ITR 230), cited in 86 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 23(4)

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. Bhaskar Mitter

73 Taxmann 437 · 1994 · High Court

citing judgments

The annual letting value of a property can be determined at a figure lower than that returned by the assessee if the returned value is not in accordance with the principles for determining annual letting value under section 23. Assessees can contend for a value based on the correct application of law.

Smitaben N. Ambani v. CWT

323 ITR 104 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

The annual value of a self-occupied property, for both wealth tax and income tax purposes, is the reasonable rent expected from a hypothetical tenant. When using municipal ratable value, statutory deductions permissible under municipal law must be added back to arrive at this expected rent.

CIT v. Sane & Doshi Enterprises

377 ITR 165 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

Rental income from unsold property held by a real-estate developer is assessable under the head 'Income from House Property' and not as 'Business Income'. The treatment in books of account as stock-in-trade does not alter the income's character for tax purposes.

CIT v. Gundecha Builders

102 Taxmann.com 27 · 2019 · High Court

citing judgments

The deemed rental value of unsold flats held as stock-in-trade is covered by Section 23(4)(b), and a subsequent amendment provided relief for unsold flats by making their annual value NIL for two years from the end of the financial year of obtaining the completion certificate.

CIT v. Neha Builders (P.) Ltd.

164 Taxmann 342 · 2007 · High Court

citing judgments

When a builder's business involves constructing and selling property, unsold units are considered stock-in-trade and income derived from them is taxable under the head 'Business Income', not 'Income from House Property'.

M.V. Sonavala v. CIT

177 ITR 246 · 1989 · High Court

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer can determine the annual value of a property based on what it might reasonably be let for from year to year or its annual ratable value, especially when rent is not charged or is below market rates. This approach is permissible under Section 23(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act.

291 ITR 500 (SC) (paras 4, 12) CIT v. Sharma (H. P.)

122 ITR 675 · 1980 · High Court

citing judgments

The annual value of a property is its annual letting value. This is determined by the rent it would fetch if let out, even if it is self-occupied.

Judgments citing Section 23(4)

Mukul Rohatgi, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 61(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2427/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri Sachit Jolly, Senior Advocate

Section 112ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 24Section 263

same. The PCIT further observed that the assessee has claimed Nil ALV in terms of Section 23(2)(a) read with Section 23(4)(a) of the Act but, for the purpose of Section 23(2)(a) of the Act, the actual occupation of the property for self-residence

Laljibhai Godadbhai Chaudhari, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1720/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 23(4)Section 24Section 250

Deemed Rental Income 8.1 It is an undisputed fact that the assessee owned more than one house property. As per Section 23(4) of the Act, only one property can be treated as self-occupied, while the others are to be treated as deemed let-out. The assessee failed

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

further rejected the alternative plea that the office premises should be considered as one of the two self-occupied properties allowed under section 23(4), and instead treated the property at Ruby Villa, Indore, as self-occupied while computing deemed rent of ₹13,86,000/– for the office premises ... modify the option for choosing a self-occupied property even during the course of assessment proceedings. The Tribunal, after examining the provisions of section 23(4), held that when an assessee has exercised an option which is not beneficial and subsequently during the assessment seeks to substitute another property

Ranee Narah, Guwahati vs. ACIT Cir -2 Guwahati, Guwahati

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 147/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) On The Basis Of Following Findings:

Section 23(4)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

indicated as to how the use of any residential property by her employees makes her eligible for exemption from the deeming provision of section 23(4), which clearly cast a mandate on the AO to ascertain the deemed let out value of all the residential properties of an individual other

Ravi K Sheth, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1907/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Ravi K Sheth Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp , Income Tax -5(3)(1), Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai Vs. 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 (Pan : Aaips7341E) (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golvala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(4)

building "Manek" was also considered by the assessee as self- occupied property but treated as deemed let out property as per section 23(4)(b) of the Act. Thus, the house property at Nagaon and the Flat No. 12B in building "Manek" are used by the assessee

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJ

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJ

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 3398/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

property despite the facts that the assessee owns more than one property capable of fetching fair market rent and disregarding the provisions of section 23(4)(b) and section 23(l)(a) of the Act., which mandates taxability of notional rent in the hands of owner of such house property

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 3397/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 3396/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 3395/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

Pankaj Gupta, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1375/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 156

apply. Clarified that, the period from March 15, 2020 till February 28, 2022, shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Section 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(1), Mumbai vs. Jaswant Jayantilal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1479/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Blei.T.A. No. 1479/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Lavanya Rajouhrohit, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 23Section 23(4)(a)Section 23(4)(b)Section 250(4)Section 41(1)

account of notional rent in respect of two premises, without appreciating the fact that the assessee has exercised an option under Section 23(4)(b) of the Act, when assessee possessed more than one house? 4. The appellant craves, leave to amend or alter any grounds ... shop at Ahmedabad and found that the assessee has not offered income from house property regarding the same. Invoking the provisions of Section 23(4)(b) of the Act, the AO was of the firm belief that the annual value of the house or houses other than the house

Palam Rural Centre, Tiruppur vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1560/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1560/Chny/2025 & S.A.No.51Chny/2025 [Arising In Ita No.: 1560/Chny/2025] िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2018-19 Palam Rural Centre, The Asst. Commissioner Of Pethampalayam, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions), Veerapandi S.O., Coimbatore. Tiruppur – 641 605. [Pan: Aaatp-2929-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Edser Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. Edser Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T

Section 11Section 12ASection 139

days, that longer period shall apply. The period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section

DCIT, Circle - 19(1), Delhi vs. Pc Jeweller Limited, Delhi

ITA 3084/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 35D

limitation and held that the period from15-03-2020 till 28-02-2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section ... apply. IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cr Building vs. Pc Jeweller Limited, Delhi

ITA 2581/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 35D

Rohan Housing Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Pune

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

ITA 622/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.622/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rohan Housing Private V The Deputy Limited, S. Commissioner Of Income 1-Modibaug, Commercial Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Building, Shivajinagar, Pune. Ganeshkhind Road, Near Agriculture College, Pune – 410016. Maharashtra. Pan: Aadcr6403N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarvesh Kandelwal – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)/Addl.Cit[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18, Dated 06.01.2025.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 23(4)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE

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

which was shown in the balance sheet and P & L Account of the assessee as closing stock of the unsold flats as per Section 23(4)(b) of the Act r.w.s. 23(1) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the said addition by relying on the decision ... owner for his own residents or his employment, business or profession as per clause (2) of the Section 23 of the act. Further, Section 23(4)(b) of the Act provided for the deemed rent, where the annual value is to be determined as if such house/houses had been

Ashishkumar Shashikant Doshi, Palanpur vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle Gandhinagar, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1399/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarshri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Parin S. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Agal, Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(4)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Sattyasheel Nandlal Naik(HUF), Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Pune

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

ITA 761/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.761/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sattyasheel Nandlal Naik Vs. Dcit, Circle-6, Pune. (Huf), 878, Shukrawar Peth, Pune- 411002. Pan : Aaahn5509B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. N. Puranikh Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai : Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred On Facts & Law In Confirming The Addition To Income Of Rs.54,99,635/- On Account Of Income From House Property U/S 23(4) Of I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Puranikh

Section 143(2)Section 23(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY