Section 23(4) — 87 case laws

Chhotelal Gangaprasad Dubey, Mumbai vs. ACIT-24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3728/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhchhotelal Gangaprasad Vs. Acit 24(1) Dubey, 1005, Blue 6Th Floor, Piramal Mountain, Shastri Nagar, Chambers, Lalgaug, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400013 Mumbai – 400 058 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaepd9496P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Aditya Maheshwari Respondent By : S. Arunkumar Date Of Hearing 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 30.08.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Erred In Upholding Action Of Income Tax Officer Of Adopting Deemed Rent Of Let Out Property At Rs.10,23,000 Without Considering The Facts That Property Was Not Lying Vacant. Due To Acute Financial Problem At The End Of Tenant, Rent Could Not Be Recovered. More Over The Tenant Has Also Not Claimed Any Expenses On Account Of Rent For The Same. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Erred In Upholding Actions Of Income Tax Officer Without Considering Written Submissions & Details Filed By The Ar Of Assessee On 24Th November 2022.” 2. Fact In Brief Is That Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,50,770/- Was Filed On 27.10.2018. The Revised Return Of Income

For Appellant: Aditya MaheshwariFor Respondent: S. Arunkumar

Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 23(4)Section 23(4)(C)

P a g e | 1 Chhotelal Gangaprasad Dubey Vs. ACIT-24(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH

Kanti Thermo Equip Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3039/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T. Varkey (Jm)

Section 23Section 23(1)(c)Section 23(4)Section 24Section 57

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “E” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Aby T. Varkey (JM

Kamaldeep Harcharanjitsingh Dang, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 408/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.408/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Hearing) Kamaldeep Harcharanjitsingh Vs. The Ito, Dang, Ward – 3(1)(1), 79A, Silver Oak Farm, Road Surat No.4, Ghitorni, New Delhi – 110030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acepd3949B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)

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 Section 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Kalidas Kurjibhai Bavariya, Bardoli, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bardoli

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

ITA 390/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.390/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Kalidas Kurjibhai Bavariya, Vs. The Ito, 5/B, Tulsi Park, Gandhi Road, Ward-2, Bardoli, Surat - 394601 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aynpb4062A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Bipin Jariwala, Advocate Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 144

Petition No.21 of 2022, stated that the period from 15.03.2020 to till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under sections 23(4) and 29A of the ITA.390/SRT/2022/AY.2012-13 Kalidas Kurjibhai Bavariya Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced below ... 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 138 of the Negotiable

Shri Saileshbhai Shambhubhai Hirpara, Jetpur vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(2), Rajkot

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 59/RJT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 59/Rjt/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Shri Saileshbhai The Deputy बनाम/ Shambhubhai Hirpara Commissioner Of Income Vs. C/O. Nishan Export, Tax Dhoraji Road, Jetpur, Circle-1(2), Rajkot Rajkot - 360370 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeph3006R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : None Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, ""यथ" क" ओर से / Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 23/08/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 30/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.01.2020 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Rajkot (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2018 Passed By The Dc/Ac, Circle-1(2), Rajkot Under Section

For Appellant: None

Section 1Section 10(24)Section 144Section 14A

devoid of any merit and, thus, dismissed. 7. Second ground of appeal relates to the addition of Rs.4,95,647/- under Section 23(4) of the Act. 8. The assessee has shown more than one residential properties. The assessee is staying at Mumbai being a self-occupied house property ... above reply was not found to be acceptable in the absence of any supporting documents and addition of Rs.4,95,647/- under Section 23(4) of the Act was made in the following manner: “However, the plea of the assessee is not accepted regarding Suncity Pride Flat as assessee

Vinay Bhasin, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 164/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(4)

said property despite his best efforts for want of tenant and the said property being commercial property, as such the provisions of section 23(4) were not applicable and thus, the addition so made should be deleted. 1.2. That. the learned CIT (A) while sustaining the addition on account

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2092/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 23(4)(b)

income in the return of income. Accordingly, he held that since assessee is holding more than one property and therefore, in terms of Section 23(4)(b), he estimated 5% of the acquisition cost and worked out and undisclosed income from „house property‟ at Rs.3

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2091/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 23(4)(b)

income in the return of income. Accordingly, he held that since assessee is holding more than one property and therefore, in terms of Section 23(4)(b), he estimated 5% of the acquisition cost and worked out and undisclosed income from „house property‟ at Rs.3

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2090/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 23(4)(b)

income in the return of income. Accordingly, he held that since assessee is holding more than one property and therefore, in terms of Section 23(4)(b), he estimated 5% of the acquisition cost and worked out and undisclosed income from „house property‟ at Rs.3

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

submitted a return disclosing a loss, which was not accepted and the Income-tax Officer determined the total income of the firm under section 23(4) and made an assessment on the firm and on the basis of that assessment, proceedings for recovery of tax were initiated. When the said ... association and on the said member having failed to file a return, the taxable income of the association was determined under section 23(4) and tax was assessed on the said income. When the order of assessment was sought to be enforced against another member of the association, he applied

Advantage Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT, CC-5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1254/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Advantage Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 414, A-Wing Express Zone, Off Western Express Highway, Malad East Mumbai-400 097 Pan: Aaaeca8925F ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit Cc-5(3) Mumbai ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR

Section 12ASection 138Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

that the period from March 15, 2020 till February 28, 2022 also to be 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

Sh. Sameer Azad Prop., Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Srinagar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 114/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 144oSection 23(4)Section 250

below: - “Their Lordships can find no justification in the language of the Act for holding that an assessment made by an officer under Section 23(4) without conducting a local inquiry and without recording the details and results of that inquiry cannot have been made to the best

Shri Sameer Azad Sultan, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3Rd, Kashmir

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 250/ASR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 144oSection 23(4)Section 250

below: - “Their Lordships can find no justification in the language of the Act for holding that an assessment made by an officer under Section 23(4) without conducting a local inquiry and without recording the details and results of that inquiry cannot have been made to the best

Anil Premchand Motiramani, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Thane

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

ITA 3017/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Pratap N. Sharma

Section 250Section 271(1)Section 54F

erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making an ad-hoc addition of Rs 2,01,600 under section 23(4) of the Act by estimating the deemed rental value of the house properties at Rs 24,000 per month (in aggregate of the three properties