“Section 23(4)”

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)

Late Mahesh Ramanlal Modi L/H Manish Mahesh Modi, Bharuch vs. ACIT Circle-1, Bharuch

In the result, ground No. VII of appeal raised by the assessee is also allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 999/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Late Mahesh Ramanlal Modi, A.C.I.T., Through L-H Manish Mahesh Modi, Circle-1, Vs. Near Shakuntal Apartment, Dahej Bharuch. Bypass Road At Nandelav, Bharuch-392001 (Gujarat) Pan No. Adfpm 4030 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 23(5)Section 24Section 254(1)Section 40Section 69A

justified in making addition of Rs. 5,36,794/- under Section 69B of the Act. On the addition of deemed rental income under Section 23(4)(b) of the Act of Rs. 1,26,000/-, the ld. CIT(A) held that the submission of assessee was duly considered

ACIT - 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Sabarmati Capital One Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3687/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte Sethna - AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23(4)Section 23(5)Section 24Section 263

unsold property lying as stock-in-trade under the head “income from house property". It was further explained that the provision of Section 23(4) of the Act which meant only for properties that are held as investments and not as stock-in-trade and the charging provisions of Section

Sabarmati Capital One Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Ward-14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3633/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte Sethna – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23(4)Section 23(5)Section 24Section 263

unsold property lying as stock-in-trade under the head “income from house property”. It was further explained that the provision of Section 23(4) of the Act which meant only for properties that are held as investments and not as stock-in-trade and the charging provisions of Section

Abhaykumar Sevantilal Sanghavi, Deesa vs. The ACIT, Circle- Palanpur, Palanpur

Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1368/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1367/Ahd/2024 & 1368/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Abhaykumar Sevantilal Acit Circle, Palanpur बनाम/ Sanghavi [Old Jurisdiction-Circle, V/S. Sanghavi Brothers Palanpur. 1St Floor, Swastik Bldg New Jurisdiction-Circle, Nr. City Police Station Gandhinagar.] Nr. Dena Bank, Main Bazar Deesa – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afbps 1660 L (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Pertain To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common & Connected, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. The Appeals Arise Out Of The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(4)Section 250Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “ए“,अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ A ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी टी.आर. से""ल

Abhaykumar Sevantilal Sanghavi, Deesa vs. Old Jurisdiction- Circle, Palanpur New Jurisdiction-Circle, Gandhinagar

Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1367/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(4)Section 250Section 68

Arihant Vastunirman Private Limited, Ratnagiri vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Kolhapur

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

ITA 448/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.448/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arihant Vastunirman Private Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Kolhapur. Limited, Office No.1, Siddhivinayak Community Hall, Shivaji Nagar, Siddhivinayak Nagar, Ratnagiri- 415612. Pan : Aakca4408K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23.10.2024 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition By The A.O. Of Rs.34,14,922/- Representing Notional Rental Income In Respect Of Unsold Flats Forming Part Of Closing Inventory Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 23(4)Section 23(5)

flats and commercial property (shops) were held as unsold stock in hand. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee in the light of section 23(4) of the IT Act that why not deemed rental income is declared by the assessee on unsold flats and commercial property (shops) held ... shops) and gave relief of Rs.4,19,832/- towards rent declared by the assessee himself. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer in the light of section 23(4) of the IT Act determined taxable deemed rent of Rs.34,14,922/- and completed the assessment vide order dated 30.12.2019 by determining total taxable

Pme Power Solutions India Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

Setty [1970] 77 ITR 539 [23-04- 1970] is very pertinent. And the relevant portion is reproduced as under: "The clear import of section 23(4) is that on committing any one of the defaults mentioned therein the Income-tax Officer is bound to make the assessment to the best

Pme Power Solutions India Ltd, New Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 242/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

M/S. Varun Developers, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 2, Pune

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

ITA 613/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23(1)(c)Section 24Section 80I

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

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Raheja Universal Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4847/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Respondent: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, CA

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH

Deepak Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-19(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1423/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

Section 143(3)Section 24

appellate proceeding, appellant has repeated his contention which was placed before the AO during assessment proceeding. Appellant contended that as per section 23(4)(a) of the Act he has an option to choose one house property as self-occupied property (SOP) and the other property as deemed ... shall be determined under sub-section (1) as if such house or houses had been let." It is undisputed facts that as per section 23(4)(a) appellant can choose one house property as self-occupied property at his option. But at the same time, it is pertinent to note

Jewel Housing, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

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

ITA 892/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P BoraFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati

Section 143(3)Section 23(4)

adopted by the Municipal Corporation or the fair market rent of the stock-in- trade of the flats as per the provisions of section 23(4) of the Act is to be adopted. Now the issue stands decided in favour of the assessee by various decisions wherein it has been

Cheryl Oscar Pereira, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1013/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt (SR. DR.)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54F

properties being residential houses which are self-occupied will have to be treated as exempt. But a restriction has been placed in section 23(4) which provides that where the property referred to in sub-section (2) consists of more than one residential houses, exemption would be available only

DCIT, C-1, Ludhiana vs. M/S Gold Star Amco Steels Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

In the results, the book results as duly audited need to be accepted and the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

ITA 1198/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: 30Th Of September 2013 And, As Such, Framing Of Assessment By The Assessing Officer Without Observing Mandatory

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manveet Singh Sehgal, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

M/S Gold Star Amco Steels Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, C-1, Ludhiana

In the results, the book results as duly audited need to be accepted and the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

ITA 1164/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: 30Th Of September 2013 And, As Such, Framing Of Assessment By The Assessing Officer Without Observing Mandatory

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manveet Singh Sehgal, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Jeeten Jaysukhlal Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT 27(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant is allowed

ITA 3977/MUM/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2024

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 24

taken F1202 as deemed let out property. In our view, the stand taken by the Appellant is supported by the provisions contained in Section 23(4) of the Act. In the present case, the Appellant exercised option to occupy and treat R503 as self-occupied property and therefore, F1202

Mack Star Marketing Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1812/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 23

completed during the year under consideration and the assessee has in fact earned lease rental of ₹.8,98,83,457/- invoking provisions of section 23(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer went on to determine the deemed rent in respect of vacant units in Kaledonia Project and made addition

Mack Star Marketing Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1709/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 23

Umesh Ambikaprasad Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4620/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

unjustified and the same may be deleted. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in making addition of Rs.1,85,691/- under section 23(4) (b) without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.” 9. At the time of hearing, Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the ground challenging ... partly allowed for statistical purpose. 25. With regard to ground raised by the assessee relating to making addition of %.1,85,691/- under section 23(4)(b) of the Act, we observe that this issue was not argued before us, therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed

Umesh A Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1848/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68