“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

Island Star Mall Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2163/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Island Star Mall Developers Commissioner Of Income-Tax Private Limited (Appeals), Market City Resources Pvt. Ltd. Nfac, Delhi Ground Floor, R.R. Hosiery Bldg, Circle 6(1)(2), 5 Th Floor, R. Vs. Shree Laxmi Woollen Mills No. 506, Aaykar Bhavan, Estate, Mumbai Mumbai-400 011 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aabci4988F Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 246ASection 249(2)(c)Section 250

income from house property under Section 22 of the Act. Assessee also on its own disallowed proportionate expenditure, which is related to house property income. The common Island Star Mall Developers Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 14-15 maintenance services charges earned by the assessee were offered as business income

Promas Engineers Pvt Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Range 15(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 615/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(3)Section 24

adjacent to ‘factory premies’, as “Income from other sources” as opposed to the assessee’s contention that it was in the nature of house property income and not “Income from other sources”. The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 6. Having perused the materials on record ... disallowed the standard deduction of Rs.3,60,000/-. The assessee has failed to substantiate its claim in treating the rental income as “House property income” as opposed to “Income from other sources”. 7. The lower authorities have rightly denied the claim of depreciation on the portion of factory building used

Promas Engineers Pvt Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Range 15(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 614/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(3)Section 24

Manoj Tekriwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 24(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4147/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Sr. AR CIT

Section 14ASection 234ASection 250Section 40Section 54

already having a residential property at B– 504, Harishchandra Apartment, Raheja Township, Malad (E), Mumbai, therefore, the aforementioned properties were subjected to house property income by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 26/03/2013 passed under section 143(3) of the Act and income from house property was computed at Rs.1

Varun Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 1963/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 263

that the loans have been availed by the assessee for purchasing a house property and hence interest expenditure could be claimed against house property income only, i.e., loans have not been taken for giving advances to M/s. Khandelwal Infotech and hence interest expenditure cannot be considered as expenditure incurred ... have been taken for the specific purpose of purchasing a house property and hence the interest 4 Varun Khandelwal expenditure is allowable against house property income only. However, the assessee has used the loan funds for giving loans to a concern named M/s Khandelwal Infotech. Since the purpose of taking

Mr. Dhaval R. Ajmera, Mumbai vs. ITO, 17(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2746/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

Goldstar Finvest Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Alliance Intermediates and Network Pvt. Ltd., on 25/11/2009. The assessee is deriving salary income, house property income, short term and long term capital gains and income from other sources. The return of income for the A.Y.2007-08 was filed by the assessee on 31/07/2007 declared

M/S. Deepali Company Privae Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 585/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. C. Krishniah Chetty & Co. Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax (Earlier Known As :Deepali Co. Officer, Pvt. Ltd.) Ward – 2 (1)(2), 35, Commercial Street, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Pan: Aaacd5120H Appellant Respondent : Shri Narendra Sharma, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Basaganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 03.0.2020 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Y. 2016-17 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Erred In Not Allowing Business Loss For The Year Of Rs. 114,66.766/- On The Ground That The Business Of The Assessee Company Is Closed & There Are No Receipts From Operation Of Business.

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma

Section 143(2)Section 24Section 72

facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in not allowing business loss to be set off against house property income on the ground that the expenses incurred were in personal in nature. Your appellant seeks leave to add to, to amend

Yash Vardhan Arya, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation) Ward-1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 203/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

computed where the property is claimed vacant throughout the year and where the assessee had not admitted any rental Incomes. The taxable house property Income from the property is worked out at Rs.23,54.940/- after allowing deductions. The enhancement of income is ordered. AO to issue notice under 156. Penalty ... also initiated on account of filing wrong particulars of income and for concealing the particulars of income for the year under house property income.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has raised this issue before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper book comprising

Sri. Venkateswara Developers, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2474/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., DR

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

this aspect of the case in the assessment order, s/he may take suitable action as per law to bring to tax the correct house property income of the assessee. 4.7. Against this assessee is in appeal before us by way of ground No.2. 4.8. The Ld. A.R. submitted that assessee

Sri Venkateswara Developers, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1910/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., DR

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

M/S. Kalebudde Logistics, Hubballi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranm/S. Kalebudde Logistics Deputy Commissioner Of 75/2 B, Kalebudde Warehouse Income Tax Vs. Gabbur, Hubballi 580029 Central Procesing Unit Bengaluru Pan – Aaofk5346F Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2022 O R D E R Per: B.R. Baskaran, A.M. The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 6-12- 2021 Passed By Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Addition Of Rs.20,38,470/- Made To The Income Declared Under The Head Income From House Property & Rs.2,07,425/- Made To The Income Declared Under The Head Income From Other Sources.

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale

Section 143(1)Section 44A

head Income from House Property and Income from other sources. Accordingly, 2 M/s. Kalebudde Logistics adjustments were made in the intimation by including house property income of Rs.20,38,470/- and income from other sources of Rs.2,07,425/-. 3. The assessee filed appeal before ld CIT(A) mentioning above ... charges - 29,12,100 Commission received - 2,07,125 ----------------- Total 1,07,75,739 ============ The Ld A.R submitted that the adjustment made to house property income amounting to Rs.20,38,470/- is included in the Godown sub-letting charges of Rs.29,12,100/-. Similarly the adjustment made to income under

Pegasus Properties P. Ltd., Pune vs. Dy CIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 943/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Dhramveer Singh

Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 22Section 23Section 23(4)

financials in factual paper book) The provisions of section 22 of the Act, which is the charging section for the purpose of house property income, specifically grants exemptions to the properties occupied by the Assessee during the course of business. 13. In the current case under consideration, the Appellant wishes

The Joint Lessees of Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ITO 20 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the assessee appeal is allowed

ITA 2797/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Joint Lessees Of Vs. Ito – 20(2)(1), Industrial Estate, Piramal Chambers, 1St Floor, Estate Bldg Ii Floor,Lalbaug, Lalbaug Industrial Mumbai – 400012 Estate, Dr B.A. Road, Mumbai – 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaaj7202Q Appellant .. Respondent Ito – 20(2)(1) Vs. The Joint Lessees Of Piramal Chambers, Industrial Estate, Ii Floor,Lalbaug, 1St Floor, Estate Bldg Mumbai – 400012 Lalbaug Industrial Estate, Dr B.A.Road, Mumbai – 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaaj7202Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant /Respondent By Shri G.P Mehta.Ar : Respondent/Appellant By Shri T. Shankar.Dr : Date Of Hearing 11.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153Section 24(1)(a)Section 50C

assessee has submitted the details of land revenue tax and therefore the A.O has considered the deduction of land revenue tax on the house property income and assessed the income from house property of Rs. 3,22,080/- as against the loss of Rs. 5,88,542/- claimed

M/S Quality Apparel Exporters Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Ground No

ITA 2352/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 2352 & 2353/Mum/2019 (A.Y: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Quality Apparel Vs. Ito -Ward -11(1)(1) Exports Pvt Ltd, Room No. 201, Unit No.4, Wicel Bldg, 2Ndfloor,Aayakar Seepz, Midc, Moral, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai Mumbai – 400020 400093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacq1711F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr.T.Shankar.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed The By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.T.Shankar.DR

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

fact that be incurred even if there are no business activities. The Learned AD has disallowed expenses which is not related to House Property Income including Depreciation. Details of the same shall be provided at the time of hearing. 3. The assessing Officer has considered rent for the Period January ... manufacturing activity except rental receipt which the assessee company has shown as business income. The Assessing Officer accepted the same as Income from House Property. Income arising from assets let out for temporary period as a part of exploitation to tide over crises condition is to be assessed as business

Abnco Logistics Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 4(1)(3), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 602/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 37

unsecured loan taken to upgrade, renovate the property which is claimed during the assessment proceeding u/s 24 while calculating the house property income.” 3. Brief facts as emanating from the record are that the Appellant is a Private Limited Company, engaged in the business of renting of immovable property. During ... extent of Rs.1,68,00,000/- were interest free funds which were utilised for the construction of commercial premises on which house property income was declared by the appellant. It is also seen that there is no increase in the investment in the commercial property at Hinjawadi during

M/S Regency Property Investments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3 (3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7972/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare

appellant. While finalising the assessment the assessing officer also did not give the benefit of set off of unabsorbed depreciation against the House Property Income and also disallowed the forex loss and other expenses being administrative expenses for maintaining the Company. Being aggrieved by the Order of the assessing officer ... passing the above orders have considered all the decisions relied upon by the assessing officer while assessing the said income under the head House Property Income'. The appellant submits that the facts of the case of Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd are quiet similar to the case of the appellant

M/S Ashish Land & Property Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 9 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 907/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blem/S. Ashish Land & Property V. Income Tax Officer – 9(1)(4) Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 10Th Floor, 215, Atrium Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400059 Pan: Aagca2673J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Department By : Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

course of assessment proceedings, assessee was asked to furnished statement and utilization details of borrowed capital on which interest expenses were claimed against house property income. In response to the same, assessee vide letter dated 08.02.2016 submitted an explanation on allowability of interest expenses u/s 24 against rental income. Assessee ... purpose of acquisition / construction of house property. Section 24(b) of the Act provides for allowability of interest expenses while computing of House property income where the property has been acquired, constructed, repaired, renewed or reconstructed with borrowed capital, the amount of any interest payable on such capital. The assessee

Hamlet Construction (India) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1315/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Ghosh

Section 115JSection 14Section 80I

concept of Book Profit if the income offered to tax is computed under the head house property. For the computation of house property income, the only thing which is required to be determined is the annual value of property which is described in Sec 23 of the Income ... taxes according to normal provision of the I.T. Act because the income of the Appellant has been shown under the head house property income. After considering the totality of facts, | have come to a conclusion that credit of MAT cannot be allowed to the Appellant. The grounds of appeal

Milan Theatres Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Circle -12(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 76/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blem/S. Milan Theatres Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – Circle – 12(3)(4) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cts 156, D.B. House Yashodham Mumbai - 400020 Goregaon (E), Mumbai -400063 Pan: Aafcm6714R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ritu Kamal Kishor Department By Shri Neha Thakur

For Appellant: Shri Ritu Kamal Kishor

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 25A

from the tenant and paid to the Government and it has no impact or is in any manner concerned /connected with computation of House Property income. 8. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) and The Ld CIT (A) has upheld the action

Mr Jasjeet Singh M Chaddah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21 (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7956/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 23(1)(a)

property. No case has been made out by the Assessing Officer that there was attempt by the assessee to reduce value of the house property income. It is not the case that the Assessing Officer has made any inquiry about the prevalent rental income or he has examined the State ... Municipal value. Without such examination, such a substitution of house property income upon whimsies and fancies of the Assessing Officer is not sustainable on the touchstone of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tip Top Typography (Income Tax Appeal No.1213 of 2011 dated 08/08/2014). I hold