“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

Shri Harsh Agarwal, Jaipur vs. The DCIT, Jaipur

ITA 317/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Meena (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

explanation given by the assessee is not correct. The income declared by the assessee in the year under consideration is only out of house property income. The Id. AO after perusing return of income of past year noted that the assessee discontinued business of jewellery. Further on examination of detailed

Shri Bhagwanbhai Ranchhodbhai Makwana, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1076/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

cash deposit. Hence the sources of cash deposit in the bank remain unexplained. 3.5. The AO also levied the penalty on undisclosed house property income and held that the assessee was having two house properties but the income from other house property was not disclosed and the appellant admitted before

Late Bhagwatsinh Jibhubhai Chavda)L/H.Bhaktiben Bhagwatsinh Chavda, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1075/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Bhaktiben Bhagwatsinh Chavda, (L/H of Late Bhagwatsinh J Chavda), Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-14(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 511/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Shri Bhagwanbhai R. Makwana, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2281/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Society of the Congregation of Franciscan Brothers, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(E), Circle -2, Mumbai

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

ITA 4747/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Society Of The Congregation Of The Asst. Cit (E), Circle 2(1), Franciscan Brothers, Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Vs. 1, Mount Poinsur, Borivali West, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400103. Pan No. Aaats 1005 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. N Jayendran

Section 11Section 24

deduction of Rs. 1 deduction of Rs. 13,39,074/- being 30% of annual value from house being 30% of annual value from house property income u/s.24 of the Act made by the AO on the ground that property income u/s.24 of the Act made ... entitled to all the that the appellant is entitled to all the permissible statutory deductions permissible statutory deductions which are available from house property income u/s.24 of the Act. which are available from house property income u/s.24 of the Act. which are available from house property income u/s.24

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

ITA 547/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

under Chapter-VIA of the income-tax Act, wrong claim of loss of Rs 70,000/- under the head house property income and for concealing particulars of income to the extent of Rs 1,21,350/- on account of non declaration of income from other sources were initiated. Noticed ... under chapter VIA of the Income-tax Act, for wrong claim of loss of Rs. 70,000/- under the head house property income and for concealing particulars of income to the extent of Rs. 1,21,350/- on account of non declaration of income from other sources. The assessee submitted

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

Rajesh Bhujanga Shetty S, Mumbai vs. Ward 28(2)(5), Mumbai

ITA 1613/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 234B

income which was filed on 05.11.2019 reporting total income at Rs.2,90,360/-. In the return filed, assessee reported income from salary, house property income and did not claim carry forward of the speculative business loss incurred by him on MCX and NCDEX. 3.2. In the course of assessment

Kandhari Infrastructures Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 710/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off. 4. That The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Erroneous, Arbitrary, Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & Thus Untenable.”

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 24ASection 24B

determined income from House Property at Rs. 40,73,316/- and the net income, after the set off of other house property income under the head income from House Property, was determined at Rs. 39,23,316/-. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

ACIT Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Magnus Properties Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and

ITA 125/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt

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

Page |1 ITA Nos.118 & 125/Mum/2024 & C.0.49/Mum/2024 ACIT, Circle 4(3)(1) Vs. Magnus Properties Pvt. Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX

Praveen Ranjan Sinha, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 399/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshpraveen Ranjan Sinha, Vs. Dcit, Icb 141, The Icon, Dlf Circle-3(1), City, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Gurgaon Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ardps3000N Sa No. 57/Del/2024 (In Ita No. 399/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Praveen Ranjan Sinha, Vs. Dcit, Icb 141, The Icon, Dlf Circle-3(1), City, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Gurgaon Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ardps3000N Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Adv Ms. Bhavya Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Dharambir Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/07/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharambir Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 2Section 250Section 55(2)(aa)Section 94(8)

income from derivatives, short term capital gain from equity shares, loss from trading in mutual funds, dividend income, salary income, interest income and house property income. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold 94914 shares of Quickdel Logistics Pvt. Ltd @3160.75 per share ii. M/s. Jasper Infotech

Patchirajan Lakshmanan, Madurai vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 597/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 597/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Principal Commissioner Of Patchirajan Lakshmanan, V. Income Tax, No. 102F,/16Z/3, Maduari -1, Dhanasekaran Nagar, Madurai – 625 002. Polepettai (West) – 628 002. [Pan:Aazpl-1396-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

assessee during the assessment proceedings, The AO passed the order on 31.10.2017 u/s. 143(3) of the Act as below: (i) House property income – Nil (as admitted) (ii) Income from business – interest disallowance Rs.1,97,787/- withdrawal of depreciation Rs.1,59,027/- (iii) Long term capital gains – Nil (as admitted

Late Jagjit Singh Bajwa Leagal Heir Harleen Bajwa, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Bangalore

ITA 825/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Raghavendra Maiya, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 54ESection 54F

Deduction under Chapter VIA as claimed Assessed Income Rs. 1,30,317/- Rs.1,68,19,120/- 3.4 Whereas, while totalling, the loss of House property income treated as positive income accordingly it is added and instead of arriving at GTI of Rs. 166,30,917/- had arrived

Irla Co-Op Hsg Soceity Ltd, Mumbai vs. Ward 25(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 4269/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Irla Co-Op Hsg Society Vs. Ito, Ward 25(2)(5) Limited, 191/A, Prime Maharashtra – 400054 Mall Irla, Vile Parle (West) Mumbai – 400056 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaai4878F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Pramod Parida Respondent By : H.M. Bhatt Date Of Hearing 13.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 23.11.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Disallowance U/S 43B- 61,01,040/- I) The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Statutory Liabilities Without Appreciating That The Same Had Been Paid Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return U/S 139(1) & Further Erred In Holding That The Appellant, A Co-Op Housing Society (Chs), Is Doing Business Activity, Therefore, As Sec 438 Is Not Applicable On The Face It Being Eligible For The Benefit U/S 80P, The Disallowance Of Rs.61.01.040/- Is Uncalled For & The Same May Be Deleted Ii) Without Prejudice To Above, The Id Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Concept Of Mutuality Does Not Apply To The Appellant Where There Is Close Nexus Of All Its Funds Flow Are Utilized Exclusively For The Benefit Of Its Members, Hence The Disallowance Made May Be Deleted As Consistency Needs To Be Respected. 2. Taxability U/S. 22 Or U/S. 56- Rental Or Hire Charges Rs.8,73,634/-

For Appellant: Pramod ParidaFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24Section 43BSection 56Section 80P

perusal of the submission of the assessee noticed that assessee has given space on rent and the rental income has been treated as house property income and claimed deduction u/s 24(b) of the Act. However, on perusal of the rental agreement the assessing officer found that Mr. Sufiyan Khan

Cheryl Oscar Pereira, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1013/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt (SR. DR.)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54F

case is that the assessee, in individual capacity, filed the return by declaring income under the head of salary, Income from House Property, Income from other sources and capital gain. During the impugned assessment year, the assessee sold 3 (three) residential houses and sale of shares of Perlin Cosmeceuticals ... head “income from house property”. The only requirement of section 54 is that income should be chargeable to tax under the head “house property income” and it is not necessary that income should have been actually charged. Therefore, capital gain arising from the sale of the Vishnu Villa flat would

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 7760/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

treaties unless same are not ratified by both the signatories of the treaty. Therefore, for AY 2009-10 it was held that house property income had to taxed as per Article 6 of the DTAA and as per that article income from Kenyan house property could not be taxed