“Section 23(4)”

RAVI K SHETH ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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)

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, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

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

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

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\ndismissed

property\ndespite the facts that the assessee owns more than one property capable of fetching\nfair market rent and disregarding the provisions of section 23(4)(b) and section\n23(l)(a) of the Act., which mandates taxability of notional rent in the hands of owner\nof 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\ndismissed

property\ndespite the facts that the assessee owns more than one property capable of fetching\nfair market rent and disregarding the provisions of section 23(4)(b) and section\n23(l)(a) of the Act., which mandates taxability of notional rent in the hands of owner\nof 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\ndismissed

property\ndespite the facts that the assessee owns more than one property capable of fetching\nfair market rent and disregarding the provisions of section 23(4)(b) and section\n23(l)(a) of the Act., which mandates taxability of notional rent in the hands of owner\nof 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\ndismissed

property\ndespite the facts that the assessee owns more than one property capable of fetching\nfair market rent and disregarding the provisions of section 23(4)(b) and section\n23(l)(a) of the Act., which mandates taxability of notional rent in the hands of owner\nof such house property

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19(1), MUMBAI vs. JASWANT JAYANTILAL SHAH , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

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

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

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.

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