“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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 608/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2025AY 2012-13

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

Shashi Prabha Singhania, Neemuch vs. Income-Tax Officer Neemuch, Neemuch

ITA 800/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 44ASection 80CSection 80D

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Padam Chand Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 35(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7418/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Padam Chand Gupta, Vs. Assistant Commissioner 1-C Court Road Civil Lines Of Income Tax, Income Tax Delhi 110054 Circle 35(1) New Delhi Pan No. Aanpg5120C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23

excess of fair rent or standard rent under the rent control legislation. If this contention of assessee is correct, then the house property income has to be determined under the provisions of section 23(1)(b) property income has to be assessed under section 23(1)(a). Section ... applicable to the present case as it is also not the case of assessing officer as he has computed the house property income as per actual rent received. In this view of the situation, if the outgoings in respect of which additions have been deleted by CIT (A) were

Galaxy Co Op Hsg Society Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward(1)(1), Thane, Maharahstra

ITA 513/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.513 & 514/M/2025

Suman Kishore, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1434/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

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

DCIT, Range-3, Lucknow vs. M/S Welldone Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 406/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S Welldone Infrastructure Range-3, Lucknow Private Limited, Lucknow Pan:Aaacw6354Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Amit Singh Chauhan, Addl (Cit) & Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) On 19.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,26,72,571/- Without Appreciate The Fact That The Assessee Is Involved In The Business Of Developing Properties & Selling It & Is Earning Rental Income Which Is Incidental To The "Revenue From Business Operations" Of The Assessee. 2. Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Law & On Facts Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee, While Filing Original Return Of Income Had Itself Considered That Rental Are In The Nature Of Revenue From Business Operations.

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Singh Chauhan, Addl (CIT) & Sh

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 250

duly mentioned at para 5 of page 2 of Assessment Order. Rental income earned from the house properties was offered to tax as House Property Income on the ground that the core and the main objects of the appellant company has been to develop real estate properties ... appreciate the merit of the case and framed the assessment order at Rs.1,40,86,790/-by treating the house property income of Rs.2,26,72,571/-as income from Business and Profession by observing that the assessee company failed to explain/justify as to why the rental income of Rs.2

Ashok Gupta HUF, Alwar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is disposed off for

ITA 52/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 56(2)(ix)

search case, as per prevalent CBDT guidelines for manual selection of cases under compulsory scrutiny. The Assessee primarily derives its income from House Property Income and income from Other Sources. 3.1 The proceedings of assessment of income were initiated by issuing of notices

Panichikandy Mohandasan, Kasargod vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kannur Range, Kannur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 605/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 40A(3)

both the parties and perused the material available on record. The first ground of appeal relates to the disallowance of loss under house property income. The AO merely disallowed the loss claimed under the head ‘house property’ by holding that the building was still under construction. During the course

Satyanarayana Reddy Manne, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1332/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad and Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 263

Director of M/s. MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd. and M/s. MSN Pharma Chem Pvt. Ltd., having income from salary, Income from Other Sources and house property income, filed his return of Income for the 4 ITA.No.1332/Hyd./2024 assessment year 2018-19 originally on 31-08-2018 admitting therein net Income

Thiruvengadamudaliar Ramalingam, Arni vs. PCIT (Central), Chennai

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

ITA 1830/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1830/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2020-21 Thiruvengadamudaliar Ramalingam The Principal Commissioner Of No.4, Big Sayakara Street, Vs. Income Tax (Central), Kosapalayam, Chennai-1. Arni – 632 301. [Pan: Aacpr 1690P]

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69B

prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the assessment order has been passed without application of mind by not including the house property income and income from other sources returned by assessee. However, the Ld. PCIT while holding the order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue

Noble Engineers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 778/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Smt. Renu Jauhrinoble Engineering Vs. The Dcit, Circle F3, Sharad Ind. Estate 41(2)(1) Lake Road, Bandup (W) Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Mumbai – 400 078. Mumbai. Pan/Gir No. Aagfn0520J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 194CSection 250Section 40

during the year under consideration therefore after giving statutory deduction a sum of Rs. 9,53,134/- was rightly considered as undisclosed house property income. 8. We have heard the counsels for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. From the records, we noticed that assessee

ACIT Circle-2(1), Gwalior vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Gwalior

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 23/AGR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.16/Agr/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta Acit - Circle-2 बनाम/ F-11, Harishankar Puram Gwalior Vs. Gwalior 474 002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Aclpg-8972-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.23/Agr/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit Circle-2 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta बनाम/ Gwalior F-11, Harishankar Puram Vs. Gwalior 474 002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Aclpg-8972-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (Cit) – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (CIT) – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

These expenses were related to business activities only and therefore, allowable to the assessee. The interest paid on house loan was allowable against house property income. The claim was held to be allowable subject to production of necessary evidence relating to payment of interest. The assessee reflected interest income

Ashok Kumar Gupta, Gwalior vs. ACIT, Gwalior

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 16/AGR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (CIT) – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

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

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 439/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 435/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2010-11) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 436/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 437/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 438/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 439/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2016-17) Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector 17, Koperkhairne, Maharashtra-400709 V/S. बनाम Ito Central Circle 5(2) Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpg8827D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Page 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

deleted. Relevant portion of the order is reproduced below: “5. ..As regards imposition of penalty on the addition made on account of notional house property income, it goes without saying that in reality the assessee has not earned any income from house property. The Assessing Officer himself has observed that

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

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 438/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani “5. ..As regards imposition of penalty on the addition made on account of notional house property income, it goes without saying that in reality the assessee has not earned any income from house property. The Assessing Officer himself has observed that the addition made on account

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

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 437/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

For Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

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

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 436/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 435/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2010-11) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 436/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 437/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 438/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 439/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2016-17) Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani V/S. Ito Central Circle 5(2) Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-400709 East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpg8827D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Page 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

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

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 435/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 435/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2010-11) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 436/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 437/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 438/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 439/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2016-17) Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani V/S. Ito Central Circle 5(2) Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-400709 East, Maharashtra-400051 बनाम स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpg8827D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Page 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 248/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 246/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 247/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Raju Mohan Gurnani V/S. Ito, Central Circle 5(2) बिधम Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-410209 East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpg9103B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

notional income was, in principle, upheld by the co-ordinate bench, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of the penalty on the house property income determined as per the direction of the coordinate bench. 7. Before us, the assessee has challenged the imposition of the penalty on various grounds

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 247/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275