← 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

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 3396/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

Bhiwandi area of Mumbai and were leased out on rent. It is submitted that the galas in question were leased out to earn house property income even though the same were shown as stock-in-trade in the books of account. No deduction was claimed as per the profit ... Bench of ITAT, Mumbai with only difference being the assessee therein claimed its similar income as Income from Business and Profession and not House property income. I.T.A. No 346/Mum/2019 in Arihant Estate Pvt. Ltd.6 January, 2021, "2. The brief facts of the case are, assessee is engaged in the business

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 3395/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

Bhiwandi area of Mumbai and were leased out on rent. It is submitted that the galas in question were leased out to earn house property income even though the same were shown as stock-in-trade in the books of account. No deduction was claimed as per the profit ... Bench of ITAT, Mumbai with only difference being the assessee therein claimed its similar income as Income from Business and Profession and not House property income. I.T.A. No 346/Mum/2019 in Arihant Estate Pvt. Ltd.6 January, 2021, "2. The brief facts of the case are, assessee is engaged in the business

Gomathi, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp. Ward 9(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1504/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1504/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19 Gomathi, Dcit, No. 13/51, Kongu Salai, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 9(1). Egmore, Chennai. Chennai –600 008. [Pan:Asmpg-0601-K] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. Pradeep, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit.

For Appellant: Mr. Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24

assessee has claimed huge interest of Rs.18,22,375/- and shown a loss of :-3-: ITA. No:1504/Chny/2025 Rs.17,37,347/- against house property income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee submitted that the interest has been paid

DCIT, CC-3, Ludhiana, Kitchlu Nagar vs. Mani Ram Balwant Rai HUF, Civil Lines

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1042/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1042/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Dcit, Mani Ram Balwant Rai, Huf, Central Circle-3, Vs Civil Lines, Opposite Session Court(Old) Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaghm1535C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. 43/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1042/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mani Ram Balwant Rai, Huf, The Dcit, Civil Lines, Opposite Session Court(Old) V Central Circle-3, Ludhiana. S Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaghm1535C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, Ca & Shri Hunny Bajaj, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, CA and Shri Hunny Bajaj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

brief facts of the case are that assessee is a HUF. It has been drawing income from business and profession and house property income. It has filed its return of income on 20.05.2020 declaring total income of Rs.87,25,340/- for assessment year 2019-20. According to the AO, assessee

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 63(1), New Delhi

ITA 1435/DEL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

facts in sustaining the action of Ld. AO to the tune of Rs.14,00,000/- on account of notional house property income and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without considering the submissions and evidences filed by the assessee and in violation of principles of natural justice ... action of Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the action of Ld. AO to the tune of Rs.14,00,000/- on account of notional house property income is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(1), New Delhi

ITA 1434/DEL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

facts in sustaining the action of Ld. AO to the tune of Rs. 14,00,000/- on account of notional house property income and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without considering the submissions and evidences filed by the assessee and in violation of principles of natural ... sustaining the action of Ld. AO to the tune of Rs. 14,00,000/- on account of notional house property income is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 7. That having regard

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(1), New Delhi

ITA 1433/DEL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

facts in sustaining the action of Ld. AO to the tune of Rs.14,00,000/- on account of notional house property income and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without considering the submissions and evidences filed by the assessee and in violation of principles of natural justice ... action of Ld. CIT(A in sustaining the action of Ld. AO to the tune of Rs.14,00,000/- on account of notional house property income is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(1), New Delhi

ITA 1432/DEL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

facts in sustaining the action of Ld. AO to the tune of Rs. 14,00,000/- on account of notional house property income and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without considering the submissions and evidences filed by the assessee and in violation of principles of natural ... sustaining the action of Ld. AO to the tune of Rs. 14,00,000/- on account of notional house property income is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 7. That having regard

Vinod Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 726/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 154Section 234ASection 80T

been taxed twice. He supported that contention by providing a reconciliation chart of the income assessed, which reads as under:- House Property Income 11,34,000/- Business Income 3,77,952/- Interest Income/Income from other Sources 22,302/- Total 15,43,254/- Considering that income assessed ... attention to the computation of income as extracted hereinbelow; 8 Vinod Kumar Gupta vs. ITO 9. As is evident from the above that house property income is already offered separately and thereby taxing it again under the head profit and gain of business or profession does not require

Ritesh Aggarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO - 16(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statisti...

ITA 200/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Ito-16(3)(3), D 704, Imperial Heights Best Colony Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Road, Goregaon West, Opp. Vs. Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Goregaon Fire Bridge, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400104. Pan No. Aadpa 6828 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Nishit Gandhi
Section 143(3)Section 147

respect of interest u/s 2 deduction in respect of interest u/s 24(b) and other expenses 4(b) and other expenses from the House Property Income. from the House Property Income. 4.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the 4.2 In the facts and circumstances

Punit Deora Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 25(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6792/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, (Sr.DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 161Section 24

erred in not considering the fact that Appellant is entitled for deduction u/s 24(a) as claimed while computing ‘House Property' income. 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that Ld. AO CPC erred in assessing appellant's income in intimation ... double taxation of the very same income. 7. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming non granting of credit for TDS deducted out of 'House Property' income although reflected in 26AS. Income being taxable in individual hands of the beneficiaries TDS is prayed to be allocated amongst the beneficiaries

K.P.Ramaswamy, Rasipuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Namakkal

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 702/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:702/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 K.P.Ramaswamy, The Income Tax Officer, 6-A, Building Society Road, Vs. Ward-2 No.5 Voc Nagar, Rasipuram Tk, Namakkal. Namakkal - 637 408. [Pan: Achpr-5024-Q] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Sri Krishna, C.A (Virtual) प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Sri Krishna, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

notice was issued u/s.143(2) of the Act on 30.08.2018. 5. During the assessment proceedings AO found that the assessee had derived house property income, business income and income from other sources. Apart from that, he had earned income from agricultural operations also. During the A.Y.2017-18 the assessee deposited SBNs

Manju Rakesh Jain, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2280/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 57

HDFC against house property. Therefore, interests paid to HDFC against house property. Therefore, interests paid to those parties can be claimed against house property income those parties can be claimed against house property income those parties can be claimed against house property income if the same is allowable under

Dosti Realty Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6128/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

making disallowance u/s. 14A, leads to double disallowance of same interest cost. 5. Addition of Rs. 6,22,821/- (net) on account of House Property income:- a. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of deemed rent ... Legal & Professional Fees - Rs. 61,79,780/- (f) Addition u/s. 14A r.w.r 8D - Rs. 3,06,36,636/- (g) Addition on account of House Property Income (Net) - Rs.6,22,821/- 4.1. Items at Sr. No. (a) to (d) are dealt in by ground no.2, item

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Esys Information Technologies Private Limited, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1628/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1628/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 बनाम Dcit, Cirlce-7(1) Esys Information Room No.406, 4Th Floor, Vs. Technologies Private C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Limited New Delhi-110002 Dlf It Park, Second Floor, Tower, Site No.22 & 23 Chandigarh Technology Park, Chandigarh -160101 (Chandigarh(Ut) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Pan:Aaace6687N

Section 147Section 24

Rs.12, 19,967/- (Para 12.2 on page 24 of CITA order) c. Held rental income of Rs.53,53,183/- to be taxed as House property income as against business income and allowed standard deduction of 30% (Para 10.1 on page 22 of CITA order) 4. That a comparative summary

Janta Land Promoters Private Limited, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1) Chandigarh, Mohali

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 907/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 907/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम M/S Janta Land Promoters Pvt.Ltd. The Ito, Sco 39-42, Sector 82, Ward 6(1), Vs Mohali. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aabcj3450D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253(5)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

assessed as a business income. There cannot be assumed annual letting value which is to be assessed under the head ‘House Property Income’. Since no rental income has been earned by the assessee out of user of ‘stock-in-trade’, therefore, no addition deserves to be made in ITA 907/CHD/2024

Hosur Mahadev Goud, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes with the above directions

ITA 798/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N. Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153C

short term capital loss also, this addition was set off. A further addition was made in the hands of assessee with respect to house property income and income from other sources. The assessment order was passed on 28.3.2022. 6. For AY 2018-19, the assessment order u/s. 153C r.w.s. 144C ... passed on 28.3.2022 wherein over and above the reclassification of capital gain, addition of house property income and income from other sources was made. 7. Similarly for AY 2019-20, assessment order u/s. 144 was passed on 28.3.2022 wherein addition of Rs.44 lakhs was made as unexplained income, ITA No.796

Hosur Mahadev Goud, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Cirlce-1(1), Bengaluru

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes with the above directions

ITA 797/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N. Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153C

short term capital loss also, this addition was set off. A further addition was made in the hands of assessee with respect to house property income and income from other sources. The assessment order was passed on 28.3.2022. 6. For AY 2018-19, the assessment order u/s. 153C r.w.s. 144C ... passed on 28.3.2022 wherein over and above the reclassification of capital gain, addition of house property income and income from other sources was made. 7. Similarly for AY 2019-20, assessment order u/s. 144 was passed on 28.3.2022 wherein addition of Rs.44 lakhs was made as unexplained income, ITA No.796

Hosur Mahadev Goud, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes with the above directions

ITA 796/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N. Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153C

short term capital loss also, this addition was set off. A further addition was made in the hands of assessee with respect to house property income and income from other sources. The assessment order was passed on 28.3.2022. 6. For AY 2018-19, the assessment order u/s. 153C r.w.s. 144C ... passed on 28.3.2022 wherein over and above the reclassification of capital gain, addition of house property income and income from other sources was made. 7. Similarly for AY 2019-20, assessment order u/s. 144 was passed on 28.3.2022 wherein addition of Rs.44 lakhs was made as unexplained income, ITA No.796

Heaven Mahendra Shah, Vile Parle (West) vs. Asst. CIT - 33(1), Mumbai, Bandra (East)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6361/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt.Renu Jauhriheaven Mahendra Shah Vs Asst. Cit-33(1), Mumbai C-12, 7Th Floor, Pratyaksha Kar 501/502, Cosmos, N.M. Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400 Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (East), 056 Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aagps3148F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal, CA a/w Shri Ajay Daga, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi - SR DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

relevant paragraphs of the submission of the Ld. AR are reproduced as below:- 1. The assessee is an individual and earns salary income, house property income, capital gains, dividend & interest etc. He is a regular investor in shares and during the year under appeal has earned capital gains in around