“annual value”

Shri Ravi Kumar Shyam Sunder Rai, Kalyan vs. DCIT, CIT-42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

relevant provision of the Act, i.e. section 23(1) of the Act as under: “23. (1) for the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be— (a) the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year ... liability to pay such taxes was incurred by the owner according to the method of accounting regularly employed by him) in determining the annual value of the property of that previous year in which such taxes are actually paid by him. Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (b) or clause

Abalabba Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-12(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

month for eight months as Income from House Property. Though the property was vacant the assessee offered the income based on the deemed annual value of the property. The AO held that the deemed value is to be taken at Rs. 33,000/- per month based on the information received ... from the Abalabba Developers Pvt. Ltd. Building Society under section 133(6) and held that Rs. 2,64,000/- is the correct deemed annual value of the property. Accordingly, the AO made an addition of Rs. 2,24,000/- towards the difference under the head "Income from House Property

La Kozy Builders LLP, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-21(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

assessee has vacant flats at the end of the relevant assessment year. Accordingly, assessee was show caused with letter dated 17.12.2018 as why the annual value of the vacant flats shown in the closing stock for the projects for which the occupancy certificate is received be not included ... information from the market that average flats trends are about %.6,000/- from the websites “Makhan.com” and “Magicbricks.com”. Accordingly, he determined the gross annual value of 34 flats held as stock in trade with the assessee at the end of the year and after giving standard deduction

DCIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Neelkanth Urban Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA No. 2408/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

Anoopkumar Devidas Raimalani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Cir-18(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

chargeable under the head “income from house property” shall be computed after giving the following deduction (i) a sum equal to 30% of the annual value of the property and (ii) where the property has been acquired, constructed, reconstructed with borrowed capital, the amount of any interest payable on such

Jt. CIT (OSD) - 2 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Private Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं. 1093/मुं/2019 (नि.व. 2012-13)

materials available on record. We find that the assessee while computing income from house property, the assessee had reduced Rs.30,55,040/- from the annual value in addition to the other statutory deduction including 30% deduction allowed towards repairs u/s. 24. The assessee had submitted that these expenditures represent maintenance

Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-58, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1093/मुं/2019(िन.व. 2012-13) Tata Sons Private Limited, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaact-4060-A बनाम Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-58, Jcit, Room No.552, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.1349/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2012-13) Jt.Cit (Osd)-2(3)(1), Mumbai Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Mumbai – 400 020 बनाम Vs. Tata Sons Private Limited, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Stree, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ....."ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaact-4060-A अपीलाथ""ारा/Appellant By : Ms. Arati Vissanji & Ms. Aastha Shah, Advocates. "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr & Ujjwal Kumar Chavhan, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/03/2024

materials available on record. We find that the assessee while computing income from house property, the assessee had reduced Rs.30,55,040/- from the annual value in addition to the other statutory deduction including 30% deduction allowed towards repairs u/s. 24. The assessee had submitted that these expenditures represent maintenance

Sai Builders and Developers, Vashi vs. PCIT-27, Vashi

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalsaibuildersanddevelopers, Vs Pr.Cit-27, B12,Ashiana,Plotno.15, Roomno.401, Sector17,Vashi, 4Thflr,Towerno.6, Navi Mumbai-400703. Vashi Railway Stationcomplex,Vashi, Navimumbai-400703. Pan/Gir No. : Abbfs0092C Appellant .. Respondent

trade and the property or any part of the property is not let during the whole or any part of the previous year, the annual value of such property or part of the property, for the period up to one year from the end of the financial year in which ... provision laid down under section 23(5) wherein it is defined that- Sai Builders and Developers, Mumbai. As per section 22 the annual value of property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner is chargeable to income tax under the head "Income

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

action has been taken to recover the rent. The ld. D.R also referred provision of Sec.23 of the Income Tax Act regarding determination of annual value of the property for computing the deemed rent. He also referred Sec. 23(4) of the I.T Act which says that if the property ... then the assessee has option to only specify any of the property as self-occupied property and in respect of the other house the annual value of the house has to be determined as provided in Sec. 23(1) of the Act. The ld. D.R submitted that assessee

Directi Internet Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

where in it held that when C), where in it held that when the property is subject to Rent Control Act, its annual value under section 23(1) subject to Rent Control Act, its annual value under section 23(1) subject to Rent Control Act, its annual value under section ... value of house property. The of house property. The relevant provision reads reads as under: “23(1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property “23(1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property “23(1) For the purposes of section

Directi Internet Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

where in it held that when C), where in it held that when the property is subject to Rent Control Act, its annual value under section 23(1) subject to Rent Control Act, its annual value under section 23(1) subject to Rent Control Act, its annual value under section ... value of house property. The of house property. The relevant provision reads reads as under: “23(1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property “23(1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property “23(1) For the purposes of section

Island Star Mall Developes Private Limited, Mumbai Suburban vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

under the head "Income from house property" in the case of a let-out property is computed in the following manner.” Particulars Amount Gross Annual Value XXXX Less: Municipal Taxes Paid during the year XXXX Net Annual Value (NAV) XXXX Less Deduction under Section 24 Deduction