← All Phrases

“Section 23(5)”

Section References (mined)Section 23Section 23(5)87 judgments

STARSHINE LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI-5, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2148/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 148Section 23(5)Section 263

obtained details and therefore it should be presumed that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind. He further submitted that the amendment to section 23(5) has been brought on the statute only w.e.f. AY 2018-19 and therefore no notional ALV could be brought to tax for the year ... reopening but about lack of enquiry in the reassessment proceedings. Likewise, the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR on the merits of section 23(5) pertain to taxability of notional rent and the same are left open to be examined by the Assessing Officer in the set aside proceedings

TNCP LLP.,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), COIMBATORE

In the result, the quantum\nNo

ITA 2603/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 24Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)

rejected by the\nLd.CIT(Appeals) who had held as follows:\n“Grounds No. 4 to 8: These grounds concern the application of section 23(5) of the\nAct, under which the Assessing Officer deemed rental income from unsold flats\nclassified by the appellant as stock-in-trade or work ... from completion timelines and\ncost metrics, treated the units as complete and available for use beyond the one-year\ntime frame envisaged in section 23(5). This interpretation, although based on\nreasonable presumption, is also not based on site-level confirmations or physical\ninspections.\nThe judicial precedents cited

TNCD LLP.,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2602/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2602 & 2603/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tncd Llp, Ito, 126, Kg House, Vs. Non Corporate Ward -1(1), Arts College Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 018. [Pan:Aagft-8799-R] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate &'थ% की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.T
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 24Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)

rejected by the Ld.CIT(Appeals) who had held as follows: “Grounds No. 4 to 8: These grounds concern the application of section 23(5) of the Act, under which the Assessing Officer deemed rental income from unsold flats classified by the appellant as stock-in-trade or work-in-progress ... from completion timelines and cost metrics, treated the units as complete and available for use beyond the one-year time frame envisaged in section 23(5). This interpretation, although based on reasonable presumption, is also not based on site-level confirmations or physical inspections. The judicial precedents cited

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA UNIVERSAL PVT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5344/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 36(2)

ITAT has allowed appellant's appeal for this same issue for AY 2013-14 and AY 2015-16. However, with the insertion of Section 23(5) w.e.f. 1.4.2018, deemed rental incоте on unsold finished stock is liable to be taxed. The AO has arrived at annual value of unsold flats ... n6.4.2 I have reviewed the facts of case, submissions of appellant dtd. 10.03.2025 and 27.05.2025, and the provisions of newly introduced Section 23(5) of Income Tax Act. The municipal ratable value of the property is much lower than the deemed rent of Rs. 2,00,000/- offered

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1561/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

appreciated this distinction. 18. One very important development took place post these judgments, that an amendment has been brought in the statute in section 23(5) which is applicable from AY 2018-2019 which reads as under, "Where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant there

BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1312/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

appreciated this distinction. 18. One very important development took place post these judgments, that an amendment has been brought in the statute in section 23(5) which is applicable from AY 2018-2019 which reads as under, "Where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant there

BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS, ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENT. CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1311/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

appreciated this distinction. 18. One very important development took place post these judgments, that an amendment has been brought in the statute in section 23(5) which is applicable from AY 2018-2019 which reads as under, "Where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant there

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1274/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

appreciated this distinction. 18. One very important development took place post these judgments, that an amendment has been brought in the statute in section 23(5) which is applicable from AY 2018-2019 which reads as under, "Where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant there

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. S K Z DEVELOPERS LLP, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, allowed, whereas, the appeal of the revenue for the year under consideration is hereby dismissed

ITA 1729/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 23(5)

unit. The AO observed that BU permission for project developed by assessee was taken on 22-01-2019 and as per provision of Section 23(5) of the Act, two years had passed on 31-03-2021, hence, addition of deemed rent @ 7.5% of value of property was required ... principle, agreed with the finding of A.O. that deemed rent was required to be computed as per provision of Section 23(5) of the Act. He, however, restricted such estimated rent @ 3% of fair market value of property and directed AO to allow 30% standard deduction on such estimated rent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. S K Z DEVELOPERS LLP, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, allowed, whereas, the appeal of the revenue for the year under consideration is hereby dismissed

ITA 1728/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 23(5)

unit. The AO observed that BU permission for project developed by assessee was taken on 22-01-2019 and as per provision of Section 23(5) of the Act, two years had passed on 31-03-2021, hence, addition of deemed rent @ 7.5% of value of property was required ... principle, agreed with the finding of A.O. that deemed rent was required to be computed as per provision of Section 23(5) of the Act. He, however, restricted such estimated rent @ 3% of fair market value of property and directed AO to allow 30% standard deduction on such estimated rent

SKZ DEVELOPERS LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, allowed, whereas, the appeal of the revenue for the year under consideration is hereby dismissed

ITA 1678/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 23(5)

unit. The AO observed that BU permission for project developed by assessee was taken on 22-01-2019 and as per provision of Section 23(5) of the Act, two years had passed on 31-03-2021, hence, addition of deemed rent @ 7.5% of value of property was required ... principle, agreed with the finding of A.O. that deemed rent was required to be computed as per provision of Section 23(5) of the Act. He, however, restricted such estimated rent @ 3% of fair market value of property and directed AO to allow 30% standard deduction on such estimated rent

SKZ DEVELOPERS LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, allowed, whereas, the appeal of the revenue for the year under consideration is hereby dismissed

ITA 1677/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 23(5)

unit. The AO observed that BU permission for project developed by assessee was taken on 22-01-2019 and as per provision of Section 23(5) of the Act, two years had passed on 31-03-2021, hence, addition of deemed rent @ 7.5% of value of property was required ... principle, agreed with the finding of A.O. that deemed rent was required to be computed as per provision of Section 23(5) of the Act. He, however, restricted such estimated rent @ 3% of fair market value of property and directed AO to allow 30% standard deduction on such estimated rent

PARAMJIT SINGH MOHANSINGH OBHAN ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 28(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4863/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantt & Shri. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ashok J PatelFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan (SR.DR.)
Section 143(3)Section 250

Tribunal had duly considered the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Ansal Housing Finance and noted that the provisions of section 23(5) were inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 with effect from 01.04.2018 to govern the computation of deemed rent in respect of unsold stock

DOSTI REALTY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 6129/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 115JSection 14ASection 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (ACCOUNTANT

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

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

ITA 3398/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nShri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: \nShri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

that the legislative intent was\nalso to tax the lease rentals under section 22 only. This can be inferred\nfrom the introduction of section 23(5) to the Act. Though the\namendment was brought in the year 2018, but the law maker intention\nbehind the amendment is, to not charge

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

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

ITA 3397/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nShri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: \nShri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

that the legislative intent was\nalso to tax the lease rentals under section 22 only. This can be inferred\nfrom the introduction of section 23(5) to the Act. Though the\namendment was brought in the year 2018, but the law maker intention\nbehind the amendment is, to not charge

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

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

ITA 3396/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: \nShri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: \nShri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

that the legislative intent was\nalso to tax the lease rentals under section 22 only. This can be inferred\nfrom the introduction of section 23(5) to the Act. Though the\namendment was brought in the year 2018, but the law maker intention\nbehind the amendment is, to not charge

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1 , KALYAN

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

ITA 3395/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: \nShri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: \nShri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

that the legislative intent was\nalso to tax the lease rentals under section 22 only. This can be inferred\nfrom the introduction of section 23(5) to the Act. Though the\namendment was brought in the year 2018, but the law maker intention\nbehind the amendment is, to not charge

DOSTI REALTY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6128/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

Assessing Officer does not survive. However, it is worth mentioning that the position would be different for years when the amendment to section 23(5) became effective from Assessment Year 2018-19 when legislature in its wisdom 21 Dosti Realty Ltd. Assessment Year 2015-16 brought the income

JANTA LAND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1) CHANDIGARH , MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 907/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 907/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम M/S Janta Land Promoters Pvt.Ltd. The Ito, Sco 39-42, Sector 82, Ward 6(1), Vs Mohali. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aabcj3450D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253(5)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH

Showing 1–20 of 87 · Page 1 of 5