← All Phrases

“house property income”

Income HeadsSection 22Section 22343 judgments

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

Leading authorities on house property income

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.

Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT
5 SCC 482 · 1997 · Supreme Court
261
citing judgments

For income to be assessable under the head 'Income from House Property' as per Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, beneficial ownership or the right to enjoy the property is sufficient; legal ownership is not a mandatory prerequisite.

Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT
239 ITR 775 · 1999 · Supreme Court
215
citing judgments

For income tax purposes, the 'owner' of a property is the person who is entitled to receive income in their own right, bears the risks incidental to ownership, and utilizes the asset, even if the sale deed is not formally registered. This beneficial ownership is sufficient for claiming depreciation or capital gains exemption under relevant sections.

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.

Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT
263 ITR 143 · 2003 · Supreme Court
181
citing judgments

Income derived from letting out property along with incidental use of furniture, fixtures, and common facilities is assessable as 'income from house property' and not 'business income' when the prime object is merely to let out and not to exploit the property as a business asset.

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.

Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT
51 ITR 353 · 1964 · Supreme Court
148
citing judgments

Income derived from letting out property is classified as business income only if the letting activity constitutes a business from a businessman's perspective, rather than mere exploitation of property by an owner. The company's object clause is not the sole determinative factor in this assessment.

East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT
42 ITR 49 · 1961 · Supreme Court
147
citing judgments

Rental income from immovable property owned by an assessee must be assessed under the head 'Income from House Property' (Section 22), even if the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate or property development and leasing. This emphasizes the mandatory classification of income under its specific statutory head.

Judgments citing house property income

Gopalkrishna Narla Rao, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 16(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 6488/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishgopalkrishna Narla Rao, Income Tax Officer, A/12/46 Sunder Nagar Kalina, Ward 16(2)(4), Vs. Santacruz East, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400098 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpr 1916R Appellant By : Shri M Subramnian Respondent By : Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr.- Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16 .03.2026

For Appellant: Shri M SubramnianFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr.- DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

being interest expenditure on house loan, was claimed as deduction twice by debiting interest and expenditure account as also claiming deduction while computing house property income. The assessee further noticed that amount of Rs.3,01,415/- required to be offered under the head income from other sources was taken

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2577/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal.

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 PER BENCH: ITA No(s). 2571, 2573 - 2577/CHNY/2025 for the Assessment Year

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2576/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Ld.AR as well as the ld.DR and pursued the records. We find that the plea for bifurcation of the assessment of the house property income attributable to the Property at Navin Building, Madipakkam in view of the admitted fact of the same being a property held in joint capacity

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2575/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Ld.AR as well as the ld.DR and pursued the records. We find that the plea for bifurcation of the assessment of the house property income attributable to the Property at Navin Building, Madipakkam in view of the admitted fact of the same being a property held in joint capacity

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2574/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Ld.AR as well as the ld.DR and pursued the records. We find that the plea for bifurcation of the assessment of the house property income attributable to the Property at Navin Building, Madipakkam in view of the admitted fact of the same being a property held in joint capacity

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2573/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Ld.AR as well as the ld.DR and pursued the records. We find that the plea for bifurcation of the assessment of the house property income attributable to the Property at Navin Building, Madipakkam in view of the admitted fact of the same being a property held in joint capacity

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2571/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Ld.AR as well as the ld.DR and pursued the records. We find that the plea for bifurcation of the assessment of the house property income attributable to the Property at Navin Building, Madipakkam in view of the admitted fact of the same being a property held in joint capacity

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2570/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal. 2. Since, The Facts Are The Identical Across All The Appeals / For All The Assessment Years, Except For The Nature Of The Additions / Disallowances Varying In Few Of The Assessment Year(S) Before This Tribunal In The Present Batch Of 6 Appeals, The Appeal Arising From The A.Y. 2012-13 Is Being Taken Up As The Lead Case With The Consent Of The Both The Ld. Ar As Well As The Departmental Representatives. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Present Case Is That The Assessee, Shri Thanushkodi Narayanan, Is The Managing Director Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt Ltd. The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 27.09.2012 In Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.24,87,430/-. 4. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out In Terms Of Section 132 Of The Act On 04.10.2017 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee & Also In The Premises Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. In Which The Assessee Is The Managing Director. 5. Thereafter, A Notice U/S.153A Of The Act For The A.Y.2012-13 Was Issued On 25.09.2018 To The Assessee By The Assessing Officer (In Short “Ao”) & In Response To The Same, The Assessee Had Filed E-Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 17.08.2019 In Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,53,440/-. :-3-:

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

:-2-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 PER BENCH: ITA No(s). 2571, 2573 - 2577/CHNY/2025 for the Assessment

Starshine Land Developers Private Limited, Andheri East, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-5, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai

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

ITA 2148/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 148Section 23(5)Section 263

ACIT that the assessee has finished goods in the form of unsold inventory at Rs.54,26,49,021/-, but has not offered house property income on the above unsold inventory . The reasons recorded clearly state that the assessee had not offered house property income on the unsold inventory and therefore

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Manisha Kamal Khetan, Mumbai

ITA 7891/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23(1)Section 24Section 250Section 68

liable to be taxed on receipt basis as income from house property in A.Y. 2023-24. Accordingly, the addition was sustained as regular house property income and not as unexplained cash credit. At the same time, the Ld. CIT(A) directed that appropriate adjustment be made ... under consideration. The learned CIT(A) has correctly appreciated that the source of receipt stood explained and that the character of income was house property income. The direction to avoid double taxation is also in consonance with settled principles. We do not find any infirmity in this finding. The contention

Sunil Kumar Baheti, Surat vs. PCIT (Central), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 579/SRT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

enquiry and application of mind by the Assessing Officer, and revision u/s 263 amounts to mere change of opinion. As regards house property income, the Ld. AR submitted that the properties were either used for business Sunil Kumar Baheti Vs. PCIT Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 3– purposes, self-occupation

Tncp LLP., Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-1(1), Coimbatore

ITA 2603/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2602 & 2603/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tncd Llp, 126, Kg House, Arts College Road, Coimbatore - 641 018. [Pan:Aagft-8799-R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Ito, Vs. Non Corporate Ward -1(1), Coimbatore. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.Τ. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषण की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: आदेश /Order : 20.11.2025 : 11.02.2026 These Appeals Of The Assessee Are Filed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)') For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Both Dated 09.07.2025 Against The Assessment Orders Passed By The Ao, Nfac, Delhi, U/S.143 (3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act') Dated 20.09.2021 & The Penalty Order Passed By The Ao, Nfac, Delhi, U/S.270A Of The Act Dated 15.01.2022 Respectively. :-2-:

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 24Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Tncd LLP., Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2602/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2602 & 2603/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tncd Llp, Ito, 126, Kg House, Vs. Non Corporate Ward -1(1), Arts College Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 018. [Pan:Aagft-8799-R] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate &'थ% की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.T
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 24Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)

paperbook filed before us. The sole issue for our consideration is whether the AO was correct at making the addition of deemed house property income invoking the provisions in Section 23(5) of the Act for the Assessment Year under consideration. It is seen from the records that the assessee

Dheeraj Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6217/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena,CIT-DR
Section 153A

addition on account of deemed income from House property. The added an ad-hoc amount of Rs 1,00,000/- as deemed house property income on the ground that the assessee had shown no such income as against house property income declared in the previous AY. The assessee stated before ... assessee being in Real Estate business, had rented out its inventory flat which was sold during AY 2014-15 and hence no house property income was shown in the impugned year. The AO/CIT(A) has neither examined the explanation of the assessee nor verified the factual position. We therefore

Sharda Chambers Premise Co Op Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6554/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. H.N. MotiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. Vikas Chandra, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)

raised a grou 6.2.2 The appellant raised a ground that the Ld. AO erred in nd that the Ld. AO erred in treating house property income of Rs. 5,77,284/ treating house property income of Rs. 5,77,284/- as income from as income from other sources. During ... already been offered to tax under the head that the said income had already been offered to tax under the head “Income from house property”. “Income from house property”. 5.2 In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that if In these circumstances, we are of the considered view

Income Tax Officer, Ferozepur vs. Ms.Jatin Agro, Fort Road

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 104/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

tender which clearly shows the intention of the assessee that the whole efforts are made to generate business income and not to earn house property income. He further submitted that all conditions of the term business as laid down u/s 2(13) of the Act has been fulfilled

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Ferozepur vs. Ms.Jatin Agro, Fort Road

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

tender which clearly shows the intention of the assessee that the whole efforts are made to generate business income and not to earn house property income. He further submitted that all conditions of the term business as laid down u/s 2(13) of the Act has been fulfilled

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1561/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

have deleted the addition in full 4 In any case, the properties being occupied by the appellant in course of its business, house property income does not arise from the same and thus the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition. 5 The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition

Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1312/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

have deleted the addition in full 4 In any case, the properties being occupied by the appellant in course of its business, house property income does not arise from the same and thus the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition. 5 The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition

Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai vs. DCIT, Cent. Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1311/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

have deleted the addition in full 4 In any case, the properties being occupied by the appellant in course of its business, house property income does not arise from the same and thus the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition. 5 The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition