← 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

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

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

ITA 246/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

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

Panichikandy Mohandasan, Kasargod vs. The DCIT, Kannur

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

ITA 48/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Panichikandy Mohandasan .......... Appellant Kanhangad, Hosdurg, Kasaragod 671315 [Pan: Advpm0383N] Vs. Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Kannur Appellant By: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

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

Veena Khindri, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

ITA 443/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Mar 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar vs. Sh. Tara Chand Gupta, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 514/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Kesh

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

return declaring an income of Rs. 4,10,650/ was e-filed by the Assessee. The Assessee primarily derives its income from Business, House Property Income and Income from Other Sources. The proceedings of assessment of income were initiated by issuing of notices ... return declaring an income of Rs. 5,56,900/ was e-filed by the Assessee. The Assessee primarily derives its income from Business, House Property Income and Income from Other Sources. The proceedings of assessment of income were initiated by issuing of notices

Sh. Tarachand Gupta, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 449/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

return declaring an income of Rs. 4,10,650/ was e-filed by the Assessee. The Assessee primarily derives its income from Business, House Property Income and Income from Other Sources. The proceedings of assessment of income were initiated by issuing of notices ... return declaring an income of Rs. 5,56,900/ was e-filed by the Assessee. The Assessee primarily derives its income from Business, House Property Income and Income from Other Sources. The proceedings of assessment of income were initiated by issuing of notices

Sh. Tarachand Gupta, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 448/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

return declaring an income of Rs. 4,10,650/ was e-filed by the Assessee. The Assessee primarily derives its income from Business, House Property Income and Income from Other Sources. The proceedings of assessment of income were initiated by issuing of notices ... members. Notice under section 153A of the Act was issued and served upon the Assessee. The Assessee primarily derives its income from Business, House Property Income and Income from Other Sources. In the search proceeding Id. AO vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 03/09/2019 asked to explain the source

Sh. Tarachand Gupta, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 447/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

return declaring an income of Rs. 4,10,650/ was e-filed by the Assessee. The Assessee primarily derives its income from Business, House Property Income and Income from Other Sources. The proceedings of assessment of income were initiated by issuing of notices

DCIT, Delhi vs. Personiv Contact Centers India Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2860/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2860/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 बनाम Smt. Suchita Goyal, Pcit-15, Plot No.32, First Floor, Road No.43, Vs. Room No.1702, E-3 Block, Ashoka Park, Extension, S.P. Shivaji Park, Civic Centre, Minto Road, West Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aafpg5320G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263Section 270A(9)

paper book) which clearly show that the earlier loan taken for another building has been transferred for the present property from which house property income has been derived during this year. We also find that the “Counsel for assessee” has submitted a certificate on the paper book that all these

Navbharat Potteries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2700/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 22Section 23(1)(c)Section 250

response, the assessee has filed the reply and after considering the reply, AO made addition of Rs.40,57,200/- observing that the house property income to the tune of Rs.40,57,200/- from the 12 units which was not offered by the assessee earlier and is added to the total ... rent from 12 units. | Particulars | Rent amount in Rs. | Total rent income | 57,96,000/- | | Less:- Standard deduction @ 30% | 17,38,800/- | | Total house property income from 12 units | From the above, the AO has computed the total income of the assessee as under:- | Assessed income u/s 143(3) | Rs.26

Anantapur District Co-Operative Staff Co-Operative Society Limited, Anantapur vs. ITO., Ward-1, Anantapur

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

ITA 1142/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.आआआ.आआ /Ita No.1142/Hyd/2024 (आआआआआआआआ आआआआ/Assessment Year:2016-17) M/S. Anantapur District Co- Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Anantapur. Operative Staff Co-Operative Society Limited, Anantapur. Pan:Aaeaa0133B (Appellant) (Respondent) आआआआआआआआआआ आआआआआआ/Assessee Dr. D. Harish Chandra Rama, Ca By: आआआआआआ आआआआआआ/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr आआआआआआ आआ आआआआआ/Date Of 24/02/2025 Hearing: आआआआआ आआ 04/03/2025 आआआआआ/Pronouncement: आआआआ/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Anantapur District Co-Operative Staff Co-Operative Society Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 05.09.2024 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Association Of Persons (“Aop”), Not Filed Any Return Of Income (“Roi”) U/S.139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'). From The Information

For Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69ASection 80P

third issue regarding addition on account of income from house property of Rs.76,938/- is concerned, we found that the house property income of Rs.76,938/- is no way related to the business income of the assessee. We also found that the main activity of the assessee is taking

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1(1)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Aver Software Technologies Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4333/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2025AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DCIT, Muzaffarnagar vs. Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad Through L/H Shri Dilnawaz & Mrs. Mehrunissa, Muzaffarnagar

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA 3555/Del/2017 is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue in ITA 3754/Del/2017 is also partly allowed

ITA 3754/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14 Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Through Legal Heir Shri Dilnawaz Income Tax, Circle-1, (Son) & Mrs. Mehrunissa (Spouse) Muzaffarnagar. 800/1, Yogendrapuri, Muzaffarnagar Pan- Ahrpd 5860 D Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Vs Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad, Commissioner Of Through Legal Heir Shri Dilnawaz (Son) Income Tax, Circle-1 & Mrs. Mehrunissa (Spouse) Muzaffarnagar. 800/1, Yogendrapuri, Muzaffarnagar Pan- Ahrpd 5860 D Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)

assessee and ground no 1 of revenue is decided accordingly. 21. With respect to ground no 2 of Revenue regarding addition of house property income u/s 23(1), we find that the assessee has not substantiated with any evidence that the said property was used for business purposessuch

Mahakali Developers and Resorts Private Limited, Scf vs. PCIT Patiala, Aaykar Bhawan

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 295/CHANDI/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goel, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 24Section 24(1)Section 263

both the orders. According to the ld. CIT, assessee was engaged in the business of Real Estate. It has disclosed house property income at Rs.17,14,387/- in ITA No.294 & 295/CHD/2024 A.Y.2013-14 & 2015-16 3 assessment year 2013-14 and Rs.20,47,661/-. It has claimed deduction under Section ... entitled of Standard Deduction contemplated under Section 24(a) of the Income Tax Act which is available when an assessee returns house property income. In the case of the assessee, its rental income is to be assessed as business income but this was not the subject matter

Mahakali Developers and Resorts Private Limites, Scf, Ist Floor vs. PCIT Patiala, Aaykar Bhawan Patiala

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 294/CHANDI/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014
For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goel, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 24Section 24(1)Section 263

both the orders. According to the 1d. CIT, assessee was engaged in the business of Real Estate. It has disclosed house property income at Rs.17,14,387/- in assessment year 2013-14 and Rs.20,47,661/-. It has claimed deduction under Section 24(1) of the Income ... entitled of Standard Deduction contemplated under Section 24(a) of the Income Tax Act which is available when an assessee returns house property income. In the case of the assessee, its rental income is to be assessed as business income but this was not the subject matter

Papaiah Pulipati, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward 14 (1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee

ITA 1243/HYD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Karthik Manickam, Sr AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 64

sake of convenience and brevity. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual having income from house property, income from business or profession, agricultural income etc., and filed his return of income on 31.07.2010. The said return was processed by the CPC u/sec.143 ... Rs.1,20,140/- was issued to the assessee. The contention of the assessee is that he had clubbed his minor daughter’s house property income of Rs.7,37,766/- u/sec.64(1A) of the Act along with his income and filed the return for the impugned assessment year

Papaiah Pulipati, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee

ITA 1200/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Karthik Manickam, Sr AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 64

sake of convenience and brevity. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual having income from house property, income from business or profession, agricultural income etc., and filed his return of income on 31.07.2010. The said return was processed by the CPC u/sec.143 ... Rs.1,20,140/- was issued to the assessee. The contention of the assessee is that he had clubbed his minor daughter’s house property income of Rs.7,37,766/- u/sec.64(1A) of the Act along with his income and filed the return for the impugned assessment year

Rohidas Bhiku Jambhulkar, Hinjawadi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CIT (A), Pune-3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2530/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2530/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rohidas Bhiku Jambhulkar, V The Commissioner Of At Hinjawadi, Near Ganesh S Income Tax (Appeals) Mandir, Tal.Mulshi, Cit(A), Pune – 3. Dist-Pune – 411057. Pan: Ahypj9277D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri J.G.Bhumkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sanjay Dhivare –Addl.Cit(Dr) Through Virtual Hearing Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/02/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2012-13 Dated 28.08.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 44Section 44A

Appellant received Rs. 12,69,000/- business receipts in cash and also he received Rs. 1,77,800/- in cash as house property income during FY 2011-12 All these cash receipts of Rs. 14,46,800/- (Rs. 12,69,000 Rs. 1,77,800/-) he deposited in his Bank ... already declared his business turnover of Rs. 27,34,716/- and house property income of Rs. 1,77,800/- in his Income Tax Return of A.Y. 2012-13 filed u/s. 139(1) of 1. Tax Act, 1961 on dt. 16.08.2013 6. Ld ITO had issued notice

Suvino Televideo, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

ITA 2099/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32(2)Section 72Section 72(1)Section 72(2)

business income during the year under consideration. Hence, the set off of unabsorbed depreciation as claimed by the assessee against the house property income and capital gains is disallowed and the incomes under respective heads are brought to tax. It is further observed that the assessee has claimed to carry ... sheet noting dated 12.02.2016 to justify the claim of unabsorbed depreciation for A.Y. 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98, as against the house property income and capital gains pertaining to the current year (A.Y. 2013-14). 4. The assessee vide his details dated 18.02.2016 has made submission which find

Asp Fincorp, Park Street, Kolkata vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2062/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2062/Kol/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri R.C. Jhawel, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

which is the profit as per the profit and loss account by ignoring the rental income of Rs.20,07,774/- already considered under house property income as per computation of business income. And by ignoring the submission of the appellant pointing out the mistake of the A.O. 3) Under ... wrong in not considering the submission of the appellant clearly pointing out the mistake of the AO while making the adjustment of house property income as per annexure attached to the intimation u/s 143(1) by making a wrong addition and ignoring the loss claimed by the appellant

Sunita Jain, Mahasamund vs. Income Tax Officer, Mahasamund

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 464/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.464/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sunita Jain 199, Ravi Shankar Shukla College Road, Mahasamund-413 445 (C.G.) Pan: Ahrpj8254B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Mahasamund (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

alone has been disclosed under 'other sources;. The return has been filed in ITR 1 and salary income as well as house property income has been shown as nil. No business income purportedly from cooking and art classes has been returned. The substantial cash deposits and credits in the bank