← 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

Dharampal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 51(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3170/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)

mainly and partly Adhesive / Elastics/ PVC Strips/ Soles for ladies footwear. The assessee had shown business income of Rs 13,42,171/- and house property income of Rs 5,33,400/- in the return of income and after reducing deductions under Chapter

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Amit Gupta, Taruchhaya Nagar, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 679/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return For The Purpose Of Seeking Foreign Tax Credit Is A Mandatory Condition. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Foreign Tax Credit Amount Of Rs.64,00,660/- Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Neither Filed Return Nor Form 67 For Claiming Foreign Tax Credit Within Due Date Prescribed For The Relevant Year Which Is Due Date Prescribed For The Relevant Year Which Is In Contravention To The Provisions Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 234ASection 90Section 91

earning income from house property and other source. During the year under consideration appellant had received salary of Rs. 1,47,43,499/-, house property income of Rs. 1,06,91,690/- and income from other sources of Rs.80,734/-. The appellant has claimed deduction under chapter

Swarup Kumar Roy, Siliguri vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 118/KOL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(1)

nature. 3. In brief, the grievance of the assessee is that on account of an apparent mistake, ld. Assessing Officer has assessed house property income of Rs.5,69,192/-. There might be some error in the return form, which has been construed by the CPC, Bengaluru as house property income ... shall first determine whether any house property is available with the assessee, which can be construed as generating the income under the head “house property income” or not. Merely some erroneous narration has been made in the schedule would not be construed as a house property income available

Anoopkumar Devidas Raimalani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Cir-18(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1653/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(2)

gold & silver, standard bars, ornaments & jewellery during the year under consideration. During the year under consideration the assessee has declared income from house property, income from business and interest income which is offered for tax in respective heads. The assessee has declared Long Term Capital Gain ... grounds of appeal, brief facts are, during the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer observed that assessee has debited %.9,87,154/- from house property income as interest paid'. The assessee was asked to furnish the details of interest paid along with interest paid certificate. In response, assessee claimed that

Jt. CIT (OSD) - 2 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Private Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1349/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं. 1093/मुं/2019 (नि.व. 2012-13)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण मुंबई पीठ “एच”, मुंबई श्री विकास अवस्थी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. रिफौर रहमान, लेखाकार सदस्य के

Sai Builders and Developers, Vashi vs. PCIT-27, Vashi

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

ITA 1916/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalsaibuildersanddevelopers, Vs Pr.Cit-27, B12,Ashiana,Plotno.15, Roomno.401, Sector17,Vashi, 4Thflr,Towerno.6, Navi Mumbai-400703. Vashi Railway Stationcomplex,Vashi, Navimumbai-400703. Pan/Gir No. : Abbfs0092C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.K.Gopal&Shri.OmKandalkar.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Hiren M Bhatt. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

expenses of Rs. 1,01,83,496/- Another issue relating the Occupancy Certificate is related to the provision of Deemed House Property income under the provisions of section 23(5) of Income Tax Act, which was introduced in the statue from A.Y.2018-19 through the Finance Act, 2017, which has amended ... Occupancy Certificate was issued in the F. Y.2016- 17. Therefore, even the law does not provide for taxation of Deemed House Property income in respect of stock-in-trade during A.Y.2018-19 corresponding to F.Y.2017-18 as this year does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of section

Effective Teleservices Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the order passed under Section 263 of the Act is directed to be set-aside

ITA 410/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Malay Kalavadia & Shri ShalibhadraFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263

Section 24(a) of the Act amounting to INR 3,74,74,320 by treating the rental income as business income instead of house property income. 4. Ground No. 4 - Depreciation has not been claimed by the Appellant in Return of Income. 4.1 On the facts and circumstances

Kalpana Goswami, Bhopal vs. I.T.O. 1(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 324/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Kalpana Goswami, Income-Tax Officer, H.No.955, Banganga, 1(1), बनाम/ North T.T.Nagar, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Awgpg5729E Assessee By Shri Milind Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2024

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

income from house property and agricultural income. Total cash receipts from the assessee’s known sources of income are summarized as under :- 1. House property income Rs. 1,20,000/- 2. Agricultural Income Rs. 1,50,000/- 3. Cash Sales proceeds

Island Star Mall Developes Private Limited, Mumbai Suburban vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2251/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

charges which has to be treated separately and the assessee is subject to TDS u/sec 194I of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect of the amenities or services provided, TDS was deducted u/sec 194C

Island Star Mall Developes Private Limited, Mumbai Suburban vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2250/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

charges which has to be treated separately and the assessee is subject to TDS u/sec 1941 of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect of the amenities or services provided, TDS was deducted u/sec 194C

Island Star Mall Developes Private Limited, Mumbai Suburban vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2249/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

charges which has to be treated separately and the assessee is subject to TDS u/sec 194I of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect of the amenities or services provided, TDS was deducted u/sec 194C

Island Star Mall Developes Private Limited, Mumbai Suburban vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2248/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

charges which has to be treated separately and the assessee is subject to TDS u/sec 1941 of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect of the amenities or services provided, TDS was deducted u/sec 194C

Island Star Mall Developes Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2247/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

charges which has to be treated separately and the assessee is subject to TDS u/sec 194I of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect of the amenities or services provided, TDS was deducted u/sec 194C

Island Star Mall Developes Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2246/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

charges which has to be treated separately and the assessee is subject to TDS u/sec 194I of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect of the amenities or services provided, TDS was deducted u/sec 194C

Smt. Priyanka Ganguly, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T.(It)-Circle-2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2619/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 234BSection 234DSection 24Section 250

Appeals) - 22, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to asthe CIT(A)], on the following amongst other grounds: i. Restricting claim of Interest deduction against house property income up to 50% under section 24 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) ii. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action ... authorities. The Ld. D.R invited our attention in the relevant paragraph of the appeal order which are reproduced as below: “10. Dispute regarding House Property income, and claim of interest deduction against such House Property income: I have carefully examined the submission made by the appellant regarding the disallowance

Jolly Maker 1 Prem Co-Op Soc Ltd, Mumbai City vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2828/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: M.V. ChokshiFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar Chavan
Section 250Section 27Section 60Section 80P

5140/Mum/2014 (2009- 10) and ITA no 1450/MUM/2017 (Asst Year 2011-12) 1.3 The action of the learned Commissioner/learned AO of not assessing House Property income and Interest income substantively in hands of the Appellant is arbitrary, baseless, illegal and improper by erroneously relying on unrelated judgment in the case

Jolly Maker 1 Prem Co-Op Soc Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2827/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: M.V. ChokshiFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar Chavan
Section 250Section 27Section 60Section 80P

5140/Mum/2014 (2009- 10) and ITA no 1450/MUM/2017 (Asst Year 2011-12) 1.3 The action of the learned Commissioner/learned AO of not assessing House Property income and Interest income substantively in hands of the Appellant is arbitrary, baseless, illegal and improper by erroneously relying on unrelated judgment in the case

Jolly Maker 1 Prem Co-Op Soc Ltd, Mumbai City vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 2826/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: M.V. ChokshiFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar Chavan
Section 250Section 27Section 60Section 80P

Мum/2014 (2009- 10) and ITA по 1450/MUM/2017 (Asst Year 2011-12) 1.3 The action of the learned Commissioner/learned AO of not assessing House Property income and Interest income substantively in hands of the Appellant is arbitrary, baseless, illegal and improper by erroneously relying on unrelated judgment in the case

Sh. Madan Lal Gupta, Keshav Nagar, Alwar vs. Addl. CIT, Central Range, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 580/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271D

filed by the assessee vide acknowledgement No. 372266941021118 on 02.11.2018. The assessee primarily derives his income from Business, House Property Income and income from Other Sources. 3.2 The proceedings of assessment of income were initiated by issuing of notices

Sh. Madan Lal Gupta, Keshav Nagar, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 579/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271D

filed by the assessee vide acknowledgement No. 372266941021118 on 02.11.2018. The assessee primarily derives his income from Business, House Property Income and income from Other Sources. 3.2 The proceedings of assessment of income were initiated by issuing of notices