← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Indore. vs. Mp Entertainment and Developers Private Limited, Indore

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit

ITA 338/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 Acit, M.P. Entertainment & 1(1), Developers Private Ltd., Indore. 94-101, 4Th Floor, बनाम/ C-21 Malls, Vs. Indore (Revenue /Appellant) (Assessee /Respondent) Pan: Aaecm8668D Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ca Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2024

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating business income of the assessee whereas the assessee had house property income as per the rent agreement made with various tenants. 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-company, engaged ... submissions. 15. The A.O. determined Rs.50,21,35,712/- (rupees fifty crore twenty one lakhs thirty five thousand seven hundred twelve only) as "house property income" for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and determined "business / professional income" at Rs.6,63,59,504/- (rupees six crore sixty three lakhs fifty nine

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Pune vs. Suresh Kumar Lakhotia, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Partly Allowed

ITA 24/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2018-19 Vs Suresh Kumar Lakhotia, The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), 3A/3B, Archies Court Pune. Shankersheth Road, Ghorpade Peth, Pune – 411042. Pune – 411042. Pan: Aazpl4337L Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Devdatta Mainkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/09/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 09.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Accepting The Assessee'S Contention That The Additional Capital Introduced In Ay 2018- 19 Represents Accumulated Suresh Kumar Lakhotia [R]

Section 250Section 68o

declaring total income of Rs.1,59,81,090. His income includes salary from group companies, business income from proprietary concern 'Shree Ram Minerals', house property income, capital gains and income from other sources. 2. In the return of income, the Appellant merged personal balance sheet with balance sheet of proprietary

M/S Achuthan Pillai and Company, Kochi vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Mattanchery

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

ITA 277/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: ---- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Girly Albert, Sr.DR
Section 40

374/Coch/2012 [order dated 11.10.2013] in Appellant's own case. The storage charges were consistently 3 ITA No.275-277/Coch/2023. Achuthan Pillai & Co. treated as house property income by the Assessing Officer. The charges are paid on monthly basis and has no nexus with the quantity of goods stored. The Appellant

M/S Achuthan Pillai and Company, Kochi vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Mattanchery

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

ITA 276/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: ---- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Girly Albert, Sr.DR
Section 40

374/Coch/2012 [order dated 11.10.2013] in Appellant's own case. The storage charges were consistently 3 ITA No.275-277/Coch/2023. Achuthan Pillai & Co. treated as house property income by the Assessing Officer. The charges are paid on monthly basis and has no nexus with the quantity of goods stored. The Appellant

M/S Achuthan Pillai and Company, Kochi vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Mattanchery

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

ITA 275/COCH/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: ---- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Girly Albert, Sr.DR
Section 40

374/Coch/2012 [order dated 11.10.2013] in Appellant's own case. The storage charges were consistently 3 ITA No.275-277/Coch/2023. Achuthan Pillai & Co. treated as house property income by the Assessing Officer. The charges are paid on monthly basis and has no nexus with the quantity of goods stored. The Appellant

ITO, Corp Ward-1(4), Chennai vs. Dev Electronics Pvt Ltd, Chennai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 107/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.107/Chny/2019 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Income Tax Officer M/S Dev Electronics Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Ward-1(4), Type-Ii/1, Dr. Vsi Estate, Vs. Chennai. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-2673-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Narayanan (Ca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita (Addl.CIT)-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri T. Narayanan (CA)-Ld. AR
Section 143(3)

leased out factory premises. The assessee debited expenditure of Rs.11.94 Lacs out of which the expenditure as incurred in connection with earning of house property income was suo-motu disallowed by the assessee. However, the balance expenditure of Rs.3.37 Lacs was claimed as business expenditure. In the absence ... incurred notwithstanding the fact the no business has been carried out by the assessee. The expenditure incurred towards earning of house property income has already been disallowed by the assessee. Therefore, the expenditure has rightly been allowed by Ld. CIT(A). We order so. 5. The appeal stands dismissed. Order

Mohamed Kaaja Taj Sadiq, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(4), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1060/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1060/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mrs. Mohamed Kaaja Taj Sadiqa Ito Flat No.1301, C Block, Taisha Non-Corporate Ward-19(4) बनाम/ Ais Housing Complex, Chennai. Vs. West Natesan Nagar, Virugambakkam, Chennai-600 092. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajnpt-7449-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Raghav Menon (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Raghav Menon (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita (Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

bank. The Ld. AO held the same to be unacceptable and made addition of Rs.10 Lacs u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE. The mismatch in house property income for Rs.0.69 Lacs was also added to the income of the assessee. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that cash book was not correctly

The W.B State Co-Op Agri and Rural Development Bank Limited., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-54, Kolkata

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

ITA 1320/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Palas Chattopadhya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)

under the head ‘income from house property’. However, it was further made clear in the order of CIT(A) that in case the house property income has been clubbed with the income from other sources, the same should be excluded from the income from other source and same should

The Maharashtra State Co. Op. Hsg Finance Corp Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-23(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 762/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

Housing Finance Corp. Ltd 8. Assessee didn't accept the payment of rent as per the advice of legal consultant and no house property income was declared In the return as per rule 4 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 9. Assessing Officer added the Rent

The Maharashtra State Co. Op. Hsg Finance Corp Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-23(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 761/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

Housing Finance Corp. Ltd 8. Assessee didn't accept the payment of rent as per the advice of legal consultant and no house property income was declared In the return as per rule 4 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 9. Assessing Officer added the Rent

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Raheja Universal Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4847/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Respondent: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, CA
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 250

flats and shops to the tune of Rs. 32,46,76,775. However, it is also found that the assessee has not shown house property income on such flats and shops. 3. The assessment record of the assessee has been verified. It is found from the computation of income submitted

Shweta Infrastructure Housing (I) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(2)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 4167/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 23(5)Section 250

under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and subsequently it was reopened u/s. 147. 2. The appellant company has not offered “house property income” on unsold flats. Placing reliance on the Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Company ... Officer erred in making addition of Rs. 93,29,865 being 8% of unsold flats valued at Rs.11,66,23,320/- as deemed house property income without appreciating the facts of the case, your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. 5. Without prejudice to Ground

Shweta Infrastructure and Housing India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

Appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3997/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 2(22)(x)Section 24Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

because of the property is not let out nor is meant to let out. The appellant wants to sell the property and hence house property income cannot be computed in its case. The submissions of the appellant were duly considered by Ld. AO. But Ld. AO placed reliance ... Delhi) and rejected the argument of appellant and 8% of unsold inventories were treated 2 Shweta Infrastructure Housing (I) Private Ltd. as deemed house property income and added to the total income of the appellant while completing the assessment. 2. The Ld. AO has observed that the audit report

E M C Projects Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1063/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1063/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Emc Projects Pvt. Limited,………………..………Appellant 2, Robinson Street, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Aaace7218F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,………Respondent Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 20, 2024 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

argumentative in nature. In brief, the issue in dispute is whether rental income earned by the assessee deserves to be assessed as house property income or business income? 3. Brief facts of the case are that the asseessee has filed its return of income ... assessment under section 143(3) on 28.12.2016. He accepted the stand of the assessee that rental income is to be assessed as a house property income. The copy of this assessment order is available on pages no. 1 to 14 of the paper book. On page 14, ld. Assessing Officer

Anil Tukaram Waghmare, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT, Panvel Circle, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 534/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalanil Tukaram Vs. Dcit 3Rd Floor, Waghmare, Aayakar Bhavan, D 702, Plot No.79/80, Opp Khanda Colony, Green Heritage, New Panvel, Sector 20, Kharghar Navi Mumbai-410206. Navi Mumbai-410210. Pan/Gir No. Aaspw9600J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Dharan Gandhi.Ar Revenue By Shri.Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi/Cit(A), Passed U/Sec 144 & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, It Was Brought To The Knowledge Of The Bench, That There Is A Delay Of 43 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & The Ld.Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal.

Section 133(6)Section 144

Unexplained cash credits/ unsecured loans u/sec 68 of the Act of Rs. 36,03,000/-(iii) addition of rent under house property income of Rs. 2,25,500/-, (iv) addition on interest income under income from other sources of Rs.30,474/- and (v) unexplained income credited in the bank accounts

The W.B. State Co-Op Agri and Rural Development Bank Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 32, Kolkata

ITA 1434/KOL/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Palash Chattapadhya, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Anup Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

under the head ‘income from house property’. However, it was further made clear in the order of CIT(A) that in case the house property income has been clubbed with the income from other sources, the same should be excluded from the income from other source and same should

Rohit Chatterji, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-35(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA

ITA 2707/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

income from other sources. The CIT(A) while upholding the penalty held that the assessee had known about his interest income and House Property income from Form 26AS and still did not include them in original return. However this finding of the CIT(A) we find is factually incorrect since

Rohit Chatterji, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, 35(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA

ITA 2706/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

income from other sources. The CIT(A) while upholding the penalty held that the assessee had known about his interest income and House Property income from Form 26AS and still did not include them in original return. However this finding of the CIT(A) we find is factually incorrect since

DCIT- 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Piramal Estates Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2019/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Mr. Ronak Doshi a/w Priyank GandhiFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT/DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 37

first two tests is negative and the third test is positive and based on this he has recomputed the service centre income as house property income after granting standard deduction ü/s 24. @30%. The AO has also stated that in the case of the appellant, the security deposit received

DCIT- 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Piramal Estates Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2018/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 37

first two tests is negative and the third test is positive and based on this he has recomputed the service centre income as house property income after granting standard deduction ü/s 24. @30%. The AO has also stated that in the case of the appellant, the security deposit received