“Section 22(1)(b)”
The decision most relied on for Section 22(1)(b) is Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT (244 ITR 734), cited in 168 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 22(1)(b)
The Revenue is bound by the rule of consistency and cannot adopt a divergent position in a subsequent assessment year unless there is a change in facts or law.
Interest expenditure incurred for acquiring capital assets, even if capitalized in the books, is deductible if for the purpose of business. Section 36(1)(iii) is a self-contained code regarding such deductions.
The annual value of house property under Section 23 of the Income Tax Act cannot include notional interest on interest-free security deposits received from tenants. Notional interest cannot be added to an interest-free security deposit to arrive at the annual value for income from house property.
The annual value of a house property for income tax purposes is to be determined based on the higher of the actual rent received or the annual value determined by the municipal/local authority, provided the municipal assessment is contemporaneous and reflects the true annual value. In cases where the property is self-occupied or not actually let, the municipal valuation serves as a reasonable guide for determining the annual letting value.
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.
The annual value fixed by municipal authorities can serve as a rational yardstick for determining the annual value of a property for income tax purposes, provided it bears a close proximity to the assessment year. Changes in circumstances that affect the annual value must be considered.
The annual letting value (ALV) of a property for income tax purposes is to be determined on the basis of the municipal valuation, unless the actual rent received is higher. The municipal valuation is not binding on the Assessing Officer if the actual rent is demonstrably higher.
