“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)

M/S. Madanthyar Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society(Previously Known As Madanthyar Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Madanthyar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 163/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

shall apply.  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, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section

M/S Poddar Finin Consultancy P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1860/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1860/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poddar Finin Consultancy बिधम/ Ito Ward Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra-410206. Vs. 4A/B, Ground Floor, Tk Industries Estate, Sitaram Palturam Murai Marg, Mumbai- 400015. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcp3938D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.08.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1) The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Assessing Officer (Ao) Is Invalid & Bad In Law. 2) (A) The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)

Section 143(2)Section 35DSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

remittances from Bombay to the assessee's account and the extent of such transactions was quite a large one. In an assessment under section 23(4) of the 1922 Act, the ITO held that the amounts credited in the bank accounts represented the profits of the assessee in the business ... assessee in Bombay was, in occupation of speculators. The ITO estimated the income of the assessee and completed the assessment under section 23(4) of the 1922 Act treating the assessee as a resident. Consequent on the assessment under section 23(4) of the 1922 Act, a notice of demand

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 971/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

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

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 970/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 969/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 968/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

Amal Allana, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-30(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 4371/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 154Section 22Section 24

been taken as NIL as per section 23(2) and considered the Greater Kailash-II property as deemed let out as per section 23(4). The GK-II property consist of Basement, Ground Floor and First Floor. The assessee declared the basement being used for self and family for commercial ... value was taken as NIL as per section 23(2) and considered the Greater Kailash- II property as deemed let out as per section 23(4) of the Act. I find the Greater kailash-II property consist of basement, ground floor and first floor. I find the assessee