← All Phrases

“annual value”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(2) / Section 23 / ITR Schedule HP425 judgments

The decision most relied on for annual value is Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT (373 ITR 673), cited in 381 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on annual value

Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT
373 ITR 673 · 2015 · Supreme Court
381
citing judgments

Income from immovable property, such as unsold flats or shops, held by an assessee as stock-in-trade in their business of acquiring and holding properties is taxable as 'business income' and not 'income from house property'. Consequently, notional annual letting value under Section 23 cannot be attributed to such stock-in-trade.

CIT v. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd.
354 ITR 180 · 2013 · High Court
208
citing judgments

Annual Letting Value (ALV) of unsold stock-in-trade flats/shops held by a real estate developer can be assessed under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as income from house property. This approach was followed by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on this decision.

CIT v. Tip Top Typography
368 ITR 330 · 2014 · High Court
161
citing judgments

For computing income from house property, the Annual Letting Value (ALV) cannot be arbitrarily estimated by the Assessing Officer, but must be determined based on the Municipal ratable value of the property.

CIT v. Moni Kumar Subba
333 ITR 38 · 2011 · High Court
78
citing judgments

Notional interest on an interest-free security deposit cannot be considered as actual or deemed rent under Section 23(1) of the Act. For determining Annual Letting Value (ALV) under Section 23(1)(a), it must be in accordance with municipal laws, considering extraneous circumstances, but not exceeding the standard rent as per rent control legislation.

Mrs. Shiela Kaushish v. CIT
131 ITR 435 · 1981 · Supreme Court
64
citing judgments

Income-tax authorities cannot add notional interest on a tenant's deposit to the income from a house property, as there is no provision for this in Sections 22 or 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The annual value of a house property is determined by specific provisions within these sections, and not by hypothetical calculations.

Radha Devi Dalmia v. CIT
125 ITR 134 · 1980 · High Court
55
citing judgments

When determining income from house property under Section 23, the Annual Letable Value (ALV) can be estimated by deeming 7% of the property's value as notional rent, particularly when actual rent or other clear basis for ALV is absent.

CIT v. Bhaskar Mitter
73 Taxmann 437 · 1994 · High Court
52
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.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. J. K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd.
248 ITR 723 · 2001 · High Court
47
citing judgments

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.

Judgments citing annual value

Western Industrial Co-Operative Estate Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 32(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6514/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14(3)Section 194ISection 24Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

under the head income from house property after claiming sub-letting charges of Rs.7,92,084/- and standard deduction @30% of annual value u/s 24(a) of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer, (A.O) in the assessment order passed u/s 14(3) of the Act, assessed the income shown under ... direct A.O to assess the income under house property. 10. As regard to disallowance of 30% of annual value u/s.24(a), the relief is consequential as we have held the rental income to be assessed under the head house property. 11. As regard to disallowances of the sub-letting charges

Western Industrial Co-Operative Estate Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 32(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6324/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14(3)Section 194ISection 24Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

under the head income from house property after claiming sub-letting charges of Rs.7,92,084/- and standard deduction @30% of annual value u/s 24(a) of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer, (A.O) in the assessment order passed u/s 14(3) of the Act, assessed the income shown under ... direct A.O to assess the income under house property. 10. As regard to disallowance of 30% of annual value u/s.24(a), the relief is consequential as we have held the rental income to be assessed under the head house property. 11. As regard to disallowances of the sub-letting charges

Idhayam Infraheights Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle, Faridabad

The appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 6779/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 6778/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Ita No. 6779/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2021-22 Idhayam Infraheights Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Shop No. 2, Second Floor, Lajpat Central Circle, Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Faridabad, Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd9391G Assessee By: Sh. Nikhil Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.12.2025 Order These Assessee’S Twin Appeals In Ita Nos. 6778 & 6779/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2021-22, Arise Against The Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon’S In Case Nos. 10948/2019-20 & 10308/2020-21 Both Dated 11.08.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 23(1)Section 24Section 28

security to the appellant, M/s Idhayam Infraheights Pvt. Ltd. The appellant has argued non applicability of the section 23(1) for calculation of annual value of property and also section 28 as business income. The appellant further states that order is arbitrary and illegal based on jurisdiction also. The case

Idhayam Infraheights Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Cirlce, Faridabad

The appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 6778/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 6778/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Ita No. 6779/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2021-22 Idhayam Infraheights Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Shop No. 2, Second Floor, Lajpat Central Circle, Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Faridabad, Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd9391G Assessee By: Sh. Nikhil Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.12.2025 Order These Assessee’S Twin Appeals In Ita Nos. 6778 & 6779/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2021-22, Arise Against The Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon’S In Case Nos. 10948/2019-20 & 10308/2020-21 Both Dated 11.08.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 23(1)Section 24Section 28

security to the appellant, M/s Idhayam Infraheights Pvt. Ltd. The appellant has argued non applicability of the section 23(1) for calculation of annual value of property and also section 28 as business income. The appellant further states that order is arbitrary and illegal based on jurisdiction also. The case

Shri K.G Subbarama Setty, Bangalore vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) Bangalore, C R Building

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 965/BANG/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 127Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

filed, the assessee had declared rental income only from one building and claimed two residential house properties as self-occupied. The gross annual value of the remaining house properties had not been brought to tax during the year. In response to show cause, the assessee in his reply submitted that ... accept the contention of the assessee since, the assessee being the owner of the House property during the year, the annual value of the property must be determined and brought to tax during the year. Further, the AO observed that the purchaser only agreed to purchase the property and ownership

K A Sujit Chandan, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Bengaluru.-5(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 964/BANG/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 127Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

filed, the assessee had declared rental income only from one building and claimed two residential house properties as self-occupied. The gross annual value of the remaining house properties had not been brought to tax during the year. In response to show cause, the assessee in his reply submitted that ... accept the contention of the assessee since, the assessee being the owner of the House property during the year, the annual value of the property must be determined and brought to tax during the year. Further, the AO observed that the purchaser only agreed to purchase the property and ownership

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1297/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because the assessee has returned a figure which is higher than the annual value determined in accordance with the correct legal principles, such higher amount and not the correct amount should be lawfully assessed. An assessee is liable

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1296/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because the assessee has returned a figure which is higher than the annual value determined in accordance with the correct legal principles, such higher amount and not the correct amount should be lawfully assessed. An assessee is liable

Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Mathikere vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1286/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because the assessee has returned a figure which is higher than the annual value determined in accordance with the correct legal principles, such higher amount and not the correct amount should be lawfully assessed. An assessee is liable

DCIT, CC-2(1), Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1028/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because the assessee has returned a figure which is higher than the annual value determined in accordance with the correct legal principles, such higher amount and not the correct amount should be lawfully assessed. An assessee is liable

DCIT, CC- 2(1), Blr, Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1027/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because the assessee has returned a figure which is higher than the annual value determined in accordance with the correct legal principles, such higher amount and not the correct amount should be lawfully assessed. An assessee is liable

DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of

ITA 1550/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Icici Bank Limited, Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, Vs Aayakarbhavan, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue (Physical Hearing) Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Vs Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)(c)

case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting addition made on account of notional interest being considered to work out annual value of the property, without appreciating that the rent received was much lower than the value at which the property might reasonable be expected ... appeal raised by revenue is dismissed. 40. Ground no. 14 relates to deleting the addition on account of notional interest considered to work out annual value of property. The facts relating are that a commercial property namely Mafatlal Towers was owned by assessee, part of which leased

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of

ITA 4418/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Icici Bank Limited, Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, Vs Aayakarbhavan, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue (Physical Hearing) Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Vs Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)(c)

case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting addition made on account of notional interest being considered to work out annual value of the property, without appreciating that the rent received was much lower than the value at which the property might reasonable be expected ... appeal raised by revenue is dismissed. 40. Ground no. 14 relates to deleting the addition on account of notional interest considered to work out annual value of property. The facts relating are that a commercial property namely Mafatlal Towers was owned by assessee, part of which leased

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No 2(a) & (b) of the revenue in ITA No. 4109/Mum/2012, therefore stands dismissed

ITA 5690/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 40

144/MUM/2016 filed by revenue stands dismissed without any adjudication to the same. 12. Ground No.1: Regarding addition of Rs. 85,876/- on account of annual value of house property. 12.1 An addition was made by the Ld. AO, observing that the assessee is utilizing its property for the sports ... psqft x 837 sqft x 12 months). Matter carried before Ld. CIT(A), wherein the issue is directed back to Ld. AO to adopt annual value of the house property as per rent control Act. In accordance with the decision which was deliberated in assessee’s own case

Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4109/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2006-07
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 40

dismissed without any adjudication to the same. ITA No. 4109/Mum/2012 (filed by Revenue) 12. Ground No.1: Regarding addition of Rs.85,876/- on account of annual value of house property. 12.1 An addition was made by the Ld. AO, observing that the assessee is utilizing its property for the sports ... psqft x 837 sqft x 12 months). Matter carried before Ld. CIT(A), wherein the issue is directed back to Ld. AO to adopt annual value of the house property as per rent control Act. In accordance with the decision which was deliberated in assessee's own case

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

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 ... property has not been let out during the whole or any part 6 Paramjit Singh Mohansingh Obhan of the previous year, then annual value of such property after the period of one year (which was increased 2 years), shall be computed as income from house property and up to period

Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, Ground No

ITA 1091/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1091/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2021-22 Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta The Dcit बनाम/ B-1001, Juhu Trishul, Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Gulmohar Cross Road No.6 Ahmedabad – 380 015 Jvpd Vile Parle West Mumbai – 400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adfpg 7162 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J. C. Desai, Ca Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 14/12/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-2022. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri J. C. Desai, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 22Section 23(1)(c)Section 24Section 250

Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2021-22 which provides that where property remains vacant despite efforts to let out, the annual value shall be taken as nil, the assessee rightly considered nil deemed rent for the year under appeal. The Counsel further submitted that both the Assessing Officer ... itself. The assessee had duly offered deemed rental income on the said flats in earlier years, but for the year under appeal, determined the annual value as Nil under section 23(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the properties, though intended to be let out, remained vacant

Asha Burman, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 46(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 544/DEL/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24

building or lands appurtenant thereto shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Income from house property”. 6.1 The determination of annual value has been contained in Section 23 of the Act and the relevant portion is contained in sub-section (1) and (2) of Section ... same reads 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; or (b) where the property or any part

Asha Burman, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 46(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 543/DEL/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24

building or lands appurtenant thereto shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Income from house property”. 6.1 The determination of annual value has been contained in Section 23 of the Act and the relevant portion is contained in sub-section (1) and (2) of Section ... same reads 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; or (b) where the property or any part

Asha Burman, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 46(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 542/DEL/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24

building or lands appurtenant thereto shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Income from house property”. 6.1 The determination of annual value has been contained in Section 23 of the Act and the relevant portion is contained in sub-section (1) and (2) of Section ... same reads 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; or (b) where the property or any part