“Section 23(4)(b)”

RAVI K SHETH ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Ravi K Sheth Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp , Income Tax -5(3)(1), Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai Vs. 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 (Pan : Aaips7341E) (Assessee) (Respondent)

building "Manek" was also considered by the assessee as self- occupied property but treated as deemed let out property as per section 23(4)(b) of the Act. Thus, the house property at Nagaon and the Flat No. 12B in building "Manek" are used by the assessee

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

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

property\ndespite the facts that the assessee owns more than one property capable of fetching\nfair market rent and disregarding the provisions of section 23(4)(b) and section\n23(l)(a) of the Act., which mandates taxability of notional rent in the hands of owner\nof such house property

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

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

property\ndespite the facts that the assessee owns more than one property capable of fetching\nfair market rent and disregarding the provisions of section 23(4)(b) and section\n23(l)(a) of the Act., which mandates taxability of notional rent in the hands of owner\nof such house property

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

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

property\ndespite the facts that the assessee owns more than one property capable of fetching\nfair market rent and disregarding the provisions of section 23(4)(b) and section\n23(l)(a) of the Act., which mandates taxability of notional rent in the hands of owner\nof such house property

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

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

property\ndespite the facts that the assessee owns more than one property capable of fetching\nfair market rent and disregarding the provisions of section 23(4)(b) and section\n23(l)(a) of the Act., which mandates taxability of notional rent in the hands of owner\nof such house property

ALHAD NARASINH KULKARNI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER MUM-W-(432)(91), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Alhad Narasinh Kulkarni Income Tax Officer Mum-W- Block 5, Flat 304, Jaypee Cghs, (432)(91), Mumbai (Beverly Park), Plot 2, Sector 22, Vs. Dwarka, Delhi – 110077. Pan/Gir No. Adqpk0726N (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B. N. Rao, Ca : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr Dr Respondent By : 07.08.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Addl/Jcit (A)-3 Ahmedabad (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dismissed The Appeal Without Considering The Reason For Delay As Proper & Justifiable. 2. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ought To Have Considered The Affidavit & The Reasoning Provided In Looking To The Hardship Experienced By The Appellant In Filing Appeal Alhad Narasinh Kulkarni

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19(1), MUMBAI vs. JASWANT JAYANTILAL SHAH , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Blei.T.A. No. 1479/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13

account of notional rent in respect of two premises, without appreciating the fact that the assessee has exercised an option under Section 23(4)(b) of the Act, when assessee possessed more than one house? 4. The appellant craves, leave to amend or alter any grounds ... shop at Ahmedabad and found that the assessee has not offered income from house property regarding the same. Invoking the provisions of Section 23(4)(b) of the Act, the AO was of the firm belief that the annual value of the house or houses other than the house

RAMESH DUNGARSHI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX, CIRCLE-3, , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Girish Agarwal, Am Ramesh Dungarshi Shah Deputy Commissioner Of Income 108, Shreedhar Apartment, Maulana Tax, Circle – 3, Kalyan Vs. 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Murbad Azad Road, Dombivali, East, Thane – 421201. Road, Kalyan West – 421301. Pan/Gir No. Aavps0931K (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Devendra Jain, Adv. (Virtually) : Shri. Asif Karmali (Sr. Dr) Respondent By : 14.02.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2015-16. 2. It Is Observed That The Assessee Has Filed This Present Appeal With A Delay Of 47 Days Beyond The Period Of Limitation For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condoning The Delay Along With The Reasons Specified For The Delay. After Hearing The Rival Contentions, We Deem It Fit To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal For The Reason That There Was ‘Sufficient Cause’ & Bonafide Reasons For The Delay. Delay Condoned.

which was shown in the balance sheet and P & L Account of the assessee as closing stock of the unsold flats as per Section 23(4)(b) of the Act r.w.s. 23(1) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the said addition by relying on the decision ... owner for his own residents or his employment, business or profession as per clause (2) of the Section 23 of the act. Further, Section 23(4)(b) of the Act provided for the deemed rent, where the annual value is to be determined as if such house/houses had been

SHRI HASMUKHLAL INDERCHAND RANAWAT,MUMBAI CITY vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19\nand 2020-21 are allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2019-20 is\ndismissed

{"clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nMumbai “E” Bench, Mumbai.\nBefore Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Aby T

SHRI HASMUKHLAL INDERCHAND RANAWAT,MUMBAI CITY vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19

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

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

SHRI HASMUKHLAL INDERCHAND RANAWAT,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(3), MUMBAI

{"clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nMUMBAI \"E\" BENCH, MUMBAI.\nBEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI ABY T

SHRI HASMUKHLAL INDERCHAND RANAWAT,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19

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

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

SHRI HASMUKHLAL INDERCHAND RANAWAT,MUMBAI CITY vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19

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

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

SHRI HASMUKHLAL INDERCHAND RANAWAT,MUMBAI CITY vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19

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

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

UMESH AMBIKAPRASAD MISHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

nunjustified and the same may be deleted.\n3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in making addition of Rs.1,85,691/-\nunder section 23(4) (b) without appreciating the facts and\ncircumstances of the case.\"\n9. At the time of hearing, Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the\nground challenging ... npartly allowed for statistical purpose.\n25. With regard to ground raised by the assessee relating to making\naddition of ₹.1,85,691/- under section 23(4)(b) of the Act, we observe\nthat this issue was not argued before us, therefore, the same is\ndismissed 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\nabove direction

nunjustified and the same may be deleted.\n3.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) erred in making addition of Rs.1,85,691/-\nunder section 23(4) (b) without appreciating the facts and\ncircumstances of the case.\"\n9. At the time of hearing, Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the\nground challenging ... npartly allowed for statistical purpose.\n25. With regard to ground raised by the assessee relating to making\naddition of ₹.1,85,691/- under section 23(4)(b) of the Act, we observe\nthat this issue was not argued before us, therefore, the same is\ndismissed as not pressed

RAJU MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

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

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

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