“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

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

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

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

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

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

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

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

ITA 3396/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

satisfied with primary ingredient that the assessee is the owner of the said building or lands appurtenant thereto. Section 22 of the Act makes 'annual value' of such a property as income chargeable to tax under this head. How annual value is to be determined is provided in Section ... contentions and perused the record. The issue under consideration has been restored by the CIT(A) to the file of AO to compute the annual value. Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT, reported in (2015) 42 SCD 651, vide

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

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

ITA 3395/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Dy. / Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 41(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4365/MUM/2025[2014-015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2025AY 2014-015

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

held that the taxes levied by any local authority in respect of the property shall be deducted in determining the annual value of the property of that previous year in which such taxes were actually paid by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the entire claim ... there is no dispute regarding the fact that, as per the provisions of the proviso to section 23 of the Act, while computing the annual value of the property, the taxes which are actually paid during the year are deductible. Therefore, we restore this issue to the file

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(1), Mumbai vs. Jaswant Jayantilal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1479/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Lavanya Rajouhrohit, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 23Section 23(4)(a)Section 23(4)(b)Section 250(4)Section 41(1)

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 in respect of which the assessee has exercised an option under Section

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)

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 ... holding any house property as his stock- in-trade which is not let out for the whole or part of the year, the annual value of such property will be considered as Nil for a period up to one year now two years from the end of the financial year

Sanjiv Soshil Mehta, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(2), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2096/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Income-tax – 1, Mumbai

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 90

Income from Salary received in UK (Annexure 8) World Crest - self-occupied 1,01,92,906 Marquise, The Park - self-occupied Gross annual value 26,000 Less: Municipal taxes (1,101) Net annual value 24,899 Less: Standard deduction u/s 24(a) (7,470) 17,429 Palm Jumeirah - Rented ... Gross annual value [(415,000/12*9/30)+((325,000/12)*29/31)+(325000/12*8)]*19.94 50,32,411 Less: Municipal taxes 50,32,411 Net annual value (15,09,723) Less: Standard deduction u/s 24(a) 35,22,688 Capital Gains Short term capital gain/loss Equity (Annexure 1) (4,34,490) Debt (Annexure

Shree Infra, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 601/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aashish Pophare, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 23(1)Section 23(5)Section 263

notional rental income on the unsold flats as required under section 23(1) of the Act, which mandates the taxation of the deemed annual value of property held as stock-in-trade beyond one year from the end of the year in which construction is completed. Principal CIT noted that ... deeming provisions which states that where a property (consisting of any building etc.) held as stock-in-trade was not let out, then the annual value of such property for a period of up to two years from the end of the Financial Year in which the certificate of completion

Jokhiram Durgadutt, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 400/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayjokhiram Durgadutt, D.C.I.T., 9, J.D. Corporate, Behind J.D. High Circle-1, Vs. Street, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aabfj 2200 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

making addition of Rs. 68,36,208/- on the ground that an examination of Audited 'Rental Account' of the assessee shows that the Gross Annual Value, on which standard deduction was claimed, includes receipts from cinema amounting to Rs, 1,94,38,209/- Income from gaming zone amounting ITA 400/Ran/2024

Ravindra Dnyaneshwar Bhujbal, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 14(5), Pune

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

ITA 25/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

which deduction exceeds specified statutory limit. For example, section 24(a) provides for a standard deduction for a sum equal to 30% of the annual value, but the assessee has claimed deduction at 40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation

Bindumalyam Panduranga Allanharinarayan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 107/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 23Section 250Section 44A

absence of any submissions made by the assessee in respect of fair rental value/municipal rental value of the property for determining the annual value of the house property as per the provisions of section 23(1)(a) of the Act, the notional value of Rs.28,07,780/- (8.5% of Rs.3 ... adopted as annual value for the purpose of computing deemed income from house property and accordingly computed the income as below: ALV as discussed above 28,07,780/- Less 30% for Repairs & Maintenance 8,42,334/- Net Annual Value 19,65,446/- 3.4 Further, with regard to let out property

ITO, Ward-16(3), New Delhi vs. Mauve Star Developers P.Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6467/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraincome Tax Officer Vs. Mauve Star Developers Ward 16(3) Private Limited Room No. 304, U-7, Ground Floor, C.R. Building, Green Park Extn. New Delhi - 110002 New Delhi – 110048 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aahcm2402N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katosh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 16Section 23Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

declared the same as its inventory. AO has contended that as per provision of section 23 the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be- meaning by that the Act has introduced the concept of fictional income, whether arises on accrued to the assessee or not. The Appellant ... house property is held as stock in trade and such property is not let during the whole or part of the year, deemed annual value would be NIL for the period ofup to one' year from the end of financial year in which certificate of completion of construction or property

Cotha Vinod Hayagriv, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 85/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Years :2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.N. Balusamy, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 23(1)(a)

property is 4930 sq.ft. which comes to Rs.2,95,980/- for 10 Page 3 of 5 months. Therefore, as per municipal value, the taxable annual value per month is R.29,598/- as per interpretation of section 23(1)(a) of the Act. The assessee has shown higher rental income. However ... with the assessee’s property. The assessee has given on rent to his son with love and affaection for carrying out business activity. The Annual value is more than the BBMP annual value , therefore the asseseee has satisfied the conditions laid out in section

Galaxy Developers, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1445/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Karan Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23(5)Section 250Section 270A

Assessing Officer under section 22. It was argued that even prior to the insertion of section 23(5), the legal position was clear that annual value of any property not used for ITA No.1445/Ahd/2024 10 business or profession and owned by the assessee was taxable under section ... real estate developer for A.Y. 2017-18. 15. Section 22 provides the charging provision for "Income from House Property" and reads: “The annual value of property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property

Classic Mall Development Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2297/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrisaktijit Dey, Vice-And Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Classic Mall Development Company Vs. Acit, Limited, Circle – 6(2)(1), C/O Market City Resources Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Ground Floor, R. R. Hosiery Building, Shree Laxmi Woolen Mills Estate, Mahalaxmi - 400011 Pan/Gir No: Aaccc7309K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Vijay Mehta, Ca Respondent By Shri Rajendra Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/05/2025

Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 270A

assessee and held that the case of the assessee is covered by the section 23(1)(a) of the Act and gross annual value has to be on the basis of expected reasonable rate. He held that the facts of the assessee are not covered by the provisions of section ... falls within the ambit of section 23(1)(a) of the Act. He computed the gross annual value at Rs.53,83,000/- and allowed deduction @ 30%, amounting to Rs.16,14,600/-. Thereafter, he added net annual value of 8 units at Rs.37

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

ITA 1220/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2015-16

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.

For Appellant: Shri. Devendra Jain, Adv. (Virtually)For Respondent: 14.02.2025

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(4)(b)Section 23(5)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 ... 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 let from this it is inferred that even before the insertion of Section

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Narasimha Reddy Duthala, Hyderabad

ITA 1113/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 54Section 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD

Padam Chand Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 35(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7418/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Padam Chand Gupta, Vs. Assistant Commissioner 1-C Court Road Civil Lines Of Income Tax, Income Tax Delhi 110054 Circle 35(1) New Delhi Pan No. Aanpg5120C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23

Mixed Use Charge to the MCD. He further submitted that the assessee has paid mixed land use charges which shall be reduce in computing annual value u/s 23 (1)(b) of the Act. He also submitted that AO has wrongly disallowed the mixed uses charges which was paid ... assessee has claimed the Mixed Use Charges paid as deduction from the rental income received from its tenants. The Ld. AR mentioned that the annual value of the property has to be determined as per the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Act. We consider it appropriate to refer

Pramukh Aranya Developers, Junagadh vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 372/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.372 /Rjt/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2018-19) M/S. Pramukh Aranya Developers Office No. 5, First Floor, Cit Centre, Opp. New Collector Officer, B/H. Sardar Baug, Junagadh - 362001 The Pr. Cit-1, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaofp3393F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Appellant By राजस्व की प्रत्यर्थी ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: : 04/02/2025 : 28/04/2025 आदेश / Order By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Dated 30.03.2024, Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax (In Short “Ld Pcit"), Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'), For The Assessment Year2018-19.Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: M/S. Pramukh Aranya Developers V. Pcit

For Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. AR

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23(5)Section 263

DCIT, Range-3, Lucknow vs. M/S Welldone Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 406/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S Welldone Infrastructure Range-3, Lucknow Private Limited, Lucknow Pan:Aaacw6354Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Amit Singh Chauhan, Addl (Cit) & Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) On 19.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,26,72,571/- Without Appreciate The Fact That The Assessee Is Involved In The Business Of Developing Properties & Selling It & Is Earning Rental Income Which Is Incidental To The "Revenue From Business Operations" Of The Assessee. 2. Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Law & On Facts Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee, While Filing Original Return Of Income Had Itself Considered That Rental Are In The Nature Of Revenue From Business Operations.

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Singh Chauhan, Addl (CIT) & Sh

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 250

that as per the provisions of section 22 and 23(5) wherein taxability of rental income and deemed rental income was discussed, the annual value of the property excluded such portions of property as may be occupied for the purposes of any business or profession carried ... referred to as the ld. Sr. DR) pointed out that section 22 of the Income Tax Act laid down that it was only the annual value of such property which was not utilized by the assessee for the purposes of any business or profession that were chargeable to income

Smt. Tejal Kaushal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 25(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 3303/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Reepal Tralshawala

Section 143(2)Section 23Section 250Section 54

offered annual let out value as per the deeming provision. The ld. AO computed the ALV at Rs. 10,43,158/- after taking the annual value at Rs. 14,90,227/- less 30% based on the rate available at www.magicbricks.com on similar office premises located in the neighborhood