← 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

Ramesh Builders, Mumbai vs. Delhi, NFAC Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1836/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri H N Motiwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR
Section 24Section 250

Rent/Leave and License fees received from M/s Pantaloon Retails (India) Limited of Rs. 2,38,88,889/- as business income instead of House property income. 6.2 The submission made by the appellant and the facts mentioned in the assessment order have been considered. It is noted that there

Hifzur Rehman Ansari, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 163/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeehifzur Rehman Ansari Vs Ito Ward-20(1)(5), Mumbai 1103, Zam Zam Tower Piramal Chambers, Dr Ss Rao Marg, Belvedere Road, Mazgaon, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 010 Pan: Aaapa7928F Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Flat and the assesse was holding two properties named Juveria Flat and Evergreen Flat and the assesse had only offered the house property income of Rs.45,000/-. The Ld. AO had not accepted the assessee’s declaration of house property income and recalculated the deemed rent @8% on the value

Income Tax Officer Ward-28(5), Civic Centre J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi vs. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed as above

ITA 1737/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 69ASection 69C

that the assessee, a jeweler, is the proprietor of Aggarwal Jewellers. He filed his Income Tax Return (‘ITR’) on 29.03.2018 declaring Nil income (House Property income of Rs. 88,550/-, income of Rs. 9,57,895/- from jewellery business, loss of Rs. (-) 63,54,568/- from Commodity Business and income

Braj Kishore Singh, Andheri East vs. Assessing Officer Int. Tax Ward 4(2)(1), International Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1011/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbraj Kishore Singh Vs. Assessing Officer 604, Lantana, Nahar Amrit Internatinal Tax Ward Shakti, Chandivali, 4(2)91) Maharashtra -400 072. Room No. 632, Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Bqips8474H C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

Section 142(1)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

income of the assessee was computed as under:- Sr. Particulars of income Amount Amount in No. in Rs. Rs. 1. House property income (-)11,778 as per statement 2. Long term capital gain as 17,04,264 discussed at para 4 3. Income from other sources ... word ‘held’ to ‘possession’ as used in the Explanation (iii) of section 48 of the Act, in the context of ownership for house property income, is misplaced for capital gains computation. Fifthly, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee shall be construed to have held the asset for the purpose

DCIT 2 2 1, Mumbai vs. M S Luvish Infotech Projects Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA

ITA 815/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedcit (2)(2)(1), Mumbai Vs M/S Luvish Infotech Projects 5Th Room No.545, Floor, Private Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Cts 102/2, Sani Armaa, Raut Lane, Mumbai-400 020 Juhu, Vile Parle West, Mumbai-400 049 Pan : Aadcm4966H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shobhit Mishra & Mr. Mahaveer JainFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri SR.AR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 250Section 72

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) justified in not considering & treating the income offered by the assessee as house property income rather treating the same as business income despite the facts that the receipts were received from letting out the industrial park, a commercial asset ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) justified in treating the income offered by the assessee as house property income instead of business income without appreciating the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investments

Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos 529 & 530/Mum/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 530/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri (SR DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

ITAT, Mumbai in ITA No. 713/Mum/2021 for A.Y. 2015–16, dated 17/11/2023, we observe that both issues—long-term capital gain and house property income— were adjudicated on merits.With respect to the exemption claimed under section 10(38) of the Act regarding long-term capital gains (LTCG), the Co-ordinate

Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos 529 & 530/Mum/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 529/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri (SR DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

ITAT, Mumbai in ITA No. 713/Mum/2021 for A.Y. 2015–16, dated 17/11/2023, we observe that both issues—long-term capital gain and house property income— were adjudicated on merits.With respect to the exemption claimed under section 10(38) of the Act regarding long-term capital gains (LTCG), the Co-ordinate

M/S. S I Media LLP, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 78/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

file of the AO for verification whether such amount of interest has been claimed as deduction against the business income or house property income. 12. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The issue involved in the case on hand

Metaoxide Private Limited, New India Centre vs. Assessing Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 1837/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainmetaoxide Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle – 1(2)(1) 5Th Floor, New India Centre, Mumbai 17 Cooperage Road, Mumbai – 400039. Pan/Gir No. Aaacm4043L (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 24Section 250

into ‘business operations’ during the year under consideration and is thus entitled to get the claim of business loss set off against house property income. It is ordered accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.05.2025. (SANDEEP

Ram Rama Products Pvc Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 13(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 65/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Biyani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Thakwani, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 271(1)Section 37

business but the same was not utilized for business purposes. Regarding the contention, alternatively, that the interest expenses should be allowed against House Property Income is not considered as the assessee itself not claimed the said expenses in the return of income and declared the House Property Income without claiming

DCIT-CC-5(4), Mumbai vs. Raghuleela Estates Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5741/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 24

ignoring the fact that the assessee has failed to establish nexus between the house property income earned and interest expenditure which is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning house property income. iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing ... facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,16,24,217/- assessed under house property income on account of maintenance charges without appreciating the fact that maintenance charge received by the assessee is part and parcel of the rent

DCIT-CC-5(4), Mumbai vs. Raghuleela Estates Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5740/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 24

ignoring the fact that the assessee has failed to establish nexus between the house property income earned and interest expenditure which is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning house property income. iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing ... facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,16,24,217/- assessed under house property income on account of maintenance charges without appreciating the fact that maintenance charge received by the assessee is part and parcel of the rent

DCIT -CC-5(4), Mumbai vs. Raghuleela Estate Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5739/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 24

ignoring the fact that the assessee has failed to establish nexus between the house property income earned and interest expenditure which is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning house property income. iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing ... facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,16,24,217/- assessed under house property income on account of maintenance charges without appreciating the fact that maintenance charge received by the assessee is part and parcel of the rent

Ashok Lavasa, New Delhi vs. Circle 67 (1), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5590/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmanashok Lavasa, Vs. Acit, Circle 67 (1), House No.32, New Moti Bagh, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 003. (Pan : Aatpl5376R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 Date Of Order : 21.05.2025 O R D E R 1. The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 09.10.2024 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Filed Appeal On 18.12.2021 For The Year Under Consideration Against The Order Of Cpc Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) On 26.02.2021 & The Order Was Served On 26.02.2021. There Was A Delay Of 264 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit (A). Ld. Cit (A) Condoned The Delay In Filing The Appeal In View Of The Principles Of Natural Justice. Ld. Cit (A)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 199

principles of natural justice. Ld. CIT (A) 2 observed that the assessee was denied TDS credit of Rs.34,456/- which was made on house property income. He observed that the assessee was having income from house property owned jointly by him along with his spouse and children and earned

Sita Rama Raju Sagi, Bhimavaram vs. ITO Ward 1 Bhimavaram, Bhimavaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.154/Viz/2025 (धनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) Sita Rama Raju Sagi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhimavaram – 534202. Ward-1, Pan: Egapa3925J Bhimavaram. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mrs. Hema Latha K, Ca प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : 20/05/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Mrs. Hema Latha K, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

assessment by providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee by re- computing the assessee’s income by treating the house property income as professional income and also denying the benefit of carry forward loss from house property as the assessee has admitted income from profession U/s. 44ADA

Thrissur District Police Co Operative Society Ltd, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thrissur

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

ITA 409/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R
Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

Before us, the assessee furnished neither the audited statement of accounts nor the details of Interest & House property income. In view of the above as well as in the interest of justice & fair play, we are remitting this limited issue back to the file of AO for determining the actual ... Income from House Property & Income from other Sources to be taxed separately under the respective head in accordance with Law with the following Observations- Income from House Property i) Net Income House Property to be calculated as per the provisions of section 22 -27 of the Act. Income from Other

Thrissur District Police Co Operative Society Ltd, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thrissur

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

ITA 408/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R
Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

Before us, the assessee furnished neither the audited statement of accounts nor the details of Interest & House property income. In view of the above as well as in the interest of justice & fair play, we are remitting this limited issue back to the file of AO for determining the actual ... Income from House Property & Income from other Sources to be taxed separately under the respective head in accordance with Law with the following Observations- Income from House Property i) Net Income House Property to be calculated as per the provisions of section 22 -27 of the Act. Income from Other

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir.-2(2), Nagpur vs. M/S Shree Agrawal Finance India P. Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 176/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 24

examining the Profit & Loss Account, Tax Audit Report and assessed income was computed at ` 8,14,83,740. Claim u/s 24(a) from house property income (i) ` 1,36,709 disallowed Agricultural income has been treated as business (ii) ` 2,52,393 income Dividend income claimed exempt

Gopal Reddy Guduru, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 253/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Chintagumpula, Sr. AR
Section 69A

income tax return filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-2015 to assessment year 2017-2018 observed that, the assessee has reported house property income of Rs.2,68,800/-; income from money landing business of Rs.12,50,000/- totalling to Rs.15,18,800/-. Therefore, considering the total income reported

Hind Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 610/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri Huidrom Robindro Singh, DR
Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 24(1)

rejecting the ITA Nos. 608 & 610/KOL/2024 Hind Ceramics Pvt. Ltd.; A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2017-18 deduction claimed by the assessee from house property income at the rate of 30% which comes to ₹70,08,412/-. 04. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income ... income under the head house property was consistently followed since the earlier assessment years, wherein the said income has been accepted as house property income and standard allowances at the rate of 30% was also allowed as is apparent from assessment order for A.Y. 2014-15, which is available