“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

The Kumar Family Trust, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Delhi

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

ITA 2773/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)

whether the means are genuine or not. The Assessing Officer observed that as per the provisions of section 23, which provides computation of gross annual value, unless the same is being used for business carried on by the owner himself. Since the assessee has given the property to Ashvin Prakash ... above, the Assessing Officer determined the annual lettable value of the abovesaid properties at Rs.9,00,000/- each and determined the net amount of annual value after standard deduction of Rs.6,30,000/- per unit. Accordingly, he determined the total rental income of Rs.12,60,000/- and made addition

The Kumar Family Trust, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

ITA 2772/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)

The Kumar Family Trust, Delhi vs. ACIT, Center Circle-4, Delhi

ITA 2771/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)

The Kumar Family Trust, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

ITA 2770/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)

Rajeev Vasudeva, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle International Taxation 3(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2343/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: us, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the learned AO in denying the claim of exemption under section 54F of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 54F

house property chargeable to tax under the head "Income from house property". Section 22 charges to tax, in the hands of the owner, the annual value of house property. Section 23 lays down the manner of determining the annual value. Section 24 lays down allowable deduction from the annual value

Gold Ak, Tenkasi vs. ITO 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

ITA 1051/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

Rs.1,36,05,133/-. The AO computed this by taking the average value of valuation on the basis of RBI data as under:- Average annual value of the 10 gms of gold (24 Rs.27414.55/10 gms (As per data Carat) during the FY.2015-16 taken from official website of Reserve Bank ... India) Average annual value of the 1 gm of gold (24 Rs.2741.45/gm Carat) during the FY 2015-16 Average annual value of the 1 gm of gold (22 Rs.2511.17/gm Carat i.e., 91.6%) during the FY.2016-17 Average annual value of the 5417.85 grams of Rs.1,36,05,133 gold (22 Carat

Gold Ak, Tenkasi vs. ITO 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

ITA 1050/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

Gold Ak, Tenkasi vs. ITO 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

ITA 1049/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

Gold Ak, Tenkasi vs. ITO 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

ITA 1048/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

Gold Ak, Tenkasi vs. ITO 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

ITA 1047/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

Gold Ak, Tenkasi vs. ITO 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

ITA 1046/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

Sanjay Subhash Yerunkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-27(3)(1), Mumbai, Vashi

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

ITA 4417/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Sanjay Subhash Yerunkar Ito-27(3)(1) Room No. 422, 4Th Floor, C/O. Ca Himanshu Gandhi Chartered Accountants, 16Th Floor, D Wing, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station, Vs. Trade World Tower, Commercial Complex, Vashi, Kamala Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Adipy 5466 F (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi Respondent By : Shri Asif Karmali Date Of Hearing : 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

total income at Rs.17,51,370/-, making an addition on the impugned amount after allowing deduction of Rs.7,50,588/- @ 30% of the annual value on the alleged total rent received by the assessee during the year under consideration. 5. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate ... 26AS of the assessee for the year under consideration. The ld. A.O. made an addition on the said amount after deducting 30% of the annual value which aggregates to Rs.7,50,588/- and the assessee has challenged the additions made by the ld. A.O. before the first appellate authority

As Raja Sons Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 379/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.379/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) A.S. Raja Sons Enterprises (P.) Ltd., V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1(1) Income Tax Office D.No. 10-5-11/5 Pratyakshakar Bhavan Care Hospital, Waltair Main Road Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530002 Visakhapatnam - 530017 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabca4796M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23(1)Section 24

addition of Rs.3,49,43,660 made by the assessing officer under the head 'Income from House Property' towards: a) re-computation of annual value us 23(1)(a) at Rs.6,04,80,000 as against Rs.1,23,46,200 computed by the appellant. b) disallowance of interest of Rs.12

Vamona Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central -2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2507/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 22Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24Section 263

said flats/shops will have to be taxed as income from House Property. For the purpose of section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be the sum for which the property might reasonable by expected to let from year to year. The Hon'ble Delhi High

Fresh Bowl Horticulture Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3049/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT, DR

Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

pointed out that in the same return form in Schedule GST- information regarding turn over/gross receipt reported for GST, assessee had made disclosure of annual value of outward supplies as per GST return filed by it against its GSTIN reporting the same amount as gross agricultural receipts. The fact

Palm Grove Beach Hotel Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -13(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3858/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

ITA no.3858/MUM/2024 Palm Grove Beach Hotel Pvt. Ltd. 2 annual letting value to 2.5% as against 8.5% determined vide assessment

Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, Deesa vs. The Pr.CIT-4, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 179/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, The Principal Commissioner Of 1, Paras Society, Neminathnagar Income-Tax-4, Vs. Road, Deesa, Gujarat-385535 Ahmedabad Pan : Afops 0131 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad [Herein- After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 03.03.2020, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Noted The Present Appeal To Be Barred By Limitation By 1355 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained That There Was, In Fact, No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Reason That The Assessee Had Inadvertently Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Before The Surat Bench Of The Itat Which, When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before It, Passed A Judicial Order Dated 21.11.2023 Dismissing The Appeal As Withdrawn, Noting The Fact That The Correct Jurisdiction Lay With The 2 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Pcit Ay : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 23Section 263Section 54F

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

Shri Sanjay Gupta, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 68/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Umaid Singh Bhati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh K Das, Sr. DR

Section 23(1)(c)Section 24

appeal: “1.0 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.50,800/- on account annual value of property in respect of flat in Drive in Park. 2.0 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts ... confirming addition of Rs.36,960/- on account annual value of property in respect of office premises of Casela Tower. 3.0 The appellant may be allowed to add, amend, alter or raise additional grounds of appeal.” Sanjay Gupta vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2012-13 - 2– Ground No. 1:- CIT(A) erred

Virendra Singh Saini, Haryana vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore, Bengalore

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

ITA 1483/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Pune19 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1483/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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 ... 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

Michelle Y. Poonawalla, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Pune

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2013-14

ITA 665/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 22Section 23Section 24Section 263Section 57

enabled me to acquire possession of said flat. 3. I invite your kind attention towards provision of Sec 23 which deals with determination of annual value. Sec 23 also states that determination of annual let-able value is, the sum for which the property might be reasonably expected ... head "Income from house property shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely- (a) a sum equal to thirty per cent of the annual value. (b) where the property has been acquired, constructed, repaired, renewed or reconstructed with borrowed capital, the amount of any interest payable on such capital