← All Phrases

“annual letting value”

Income HeadsSection 23Section 23238 judgments

The decision most relied on for annual letting value is Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT (373 ITR 673), cited in 381 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on annual letting value

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.

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.

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.

CIT v. Moni Kumar Subba
333 ITR 38 · 2011 · High Court
78
citing judgments

Notional interest on an interest-free security deposit cannot be considered as actual or deemed rent under Section 23(1) of the Act. For determining Annual Letting Value (ALV) under Section 23(1)(a), it must be in accordance with municipal laws, considering extraneous circumstances, but not exceeding the standard rent as per rent control legislation.

CIT v. Bhaskar Mitter
73 Taxmann 437 · 1994 · High Court
52
citing judgments

The annual letting value of a property can be determined at a figure lower than that returned by the assessee if the returned value is not in accordance with the principles for determining annual letting value under section 23. Assessees can contend for a value based on the correct application of law.

Smitaben N. Ambani v. CWT
323 ITR 104 · 2010 · High Court
44
citing judgments

The annual value of a self-occupied property, for both wealth tax and income tax purposes, is the reasonable rent expected from a hypothetical tenant. When using municipal ratable value, statutory deductions permissible under municipal law must be added back to arrive at this expected rent.

Premsudha Exports (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT
110 ITD 158 · 2008 · ITAT
41
citing judgments

For the purpose of computing income from house property, the annual value under Section 23 must be determined even if the property is vacant or not actually let out, as the statutory phrase "property is let out" does not necessitate actual letting.

CIT v. Sane & Doshi Enterprises
377 ITR 165 · 2015 · High Court
38
citing judgments

Rental income from unsold property held by a real-estate developer is assessable under the head 'Income from House Property' and not as 'Business Income'. The treatment in books of account as stock-in-trade does not alter the income's character for tax purposes.

Judgments citing annual letting value

Sundaram Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6682/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

Assessing Officer concluded that the Appellant was liable to pay income tax on the rental income computed on the basis of annual letting value of the unsold shops held as stock-in-trade by the Appellant and made an addition of INR 21,08,904/-. In appeal preferred

Sai Siddhant Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC -5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2193/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

solitary grievance is against an addition of ₹18,50,176/- sustained by the CIT(A) under the head „Income from House Property‟ representing Annual Letting Value of unsold flat. 3. Briefly put, the relevant facts are that the appellant is an individual who is, inter-alia, engaged in the business ... other flat remained unsold. Such unsold flats represented stock-in-trade of the assessee. The Assessing Officer proceeded to tax the notional Annual Letting Value (ALV) of both the flats in terms of Sec. 22 of the Act as deemed let out properties. An addition

Sai Siddhant Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC-5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2192/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)

solitary grievance is against an addition of ₹18,50,176/- sustained by the CIT(A) under the head „Income from House Property‟ representing Annual Letting Value of unsold flat. 3. Briefly put, the relevant facts are that the appellant is an individual who is, inter-alia, engaged in the business ... other flat remained unsold. Such unsold flats represented stock-in-trade of the assessee. The Assessing Officer proceeded to tax the notional Annual Letting Value (ALV) of both the flats in terms of Sec. 22 of the Act as deemed let out properties. An addition

M/S. Sai Siddhi Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC-5(40, Mumbai

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

ITA 2190/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)

solitary grievance is against an addition of ₹18,50,176/- sustained by the CIT(A) under the head „Income from House Property‟ representing Annual Letting Value of unsold flat. 3. Briefly put, the relevant facts are that the appellant is an individual who is, inter-alia, engaged in the business ... other flat remained unsold. Such unsold flats represented stock-in-trade of the assessee. The Assessing Officer proceeded to tax the notional Annual Letting Value (ALV) of both the flats in terms of Sec. 22 of the Act as deemed let out properties. An addition

Shree Sai Consultants, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2188/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)

solitary grievance is against an addition of ₹18,50,176/- sustained by the CIT(A) under the head „Income from House Property‟ representing Annual Letting Value of unsold flat. 3. Briefly put, the relevant facts are that the appellant is an individual who is, inter-alia, engaged in the business ... other flat remained unsold. Such unsold flats represented stock-in-trade of the assessee. The Assessing Officer proceeded to tax the notional Annual Letting Value (ALV) of both the flats in terms of Sec. 22 of the Act as deemed let out properties. An addition

Manoj Tekriwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 24(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4147/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Sr. AR CIT
Section 14ASection 234ASection 250Section 40Section 54

Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. Manoj Tekriwal ITA No.4147/Mum./2015 9. During the course of hearing, learned AR submitted that annual letting value determined by the Assessing Officer is contrary to the provisions of sections 22 and 23 of the Act. The learned AR further submitted that ... properties are subjected to rent control legislation and therefore determination of annual letting value should be in terms of the rent control legislation. 10. On the other hand, learned DR vehemently relied upon the order passed by the lower authorities and submitted that there is no evidence that the rent

Dy CIT Dd-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 12/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Company Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 180 (Del), the AO computed the annual letting value of the unsold flats u/s.23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act') at Rs.1,47,65,688/- and made addition ... properties. Certain flats/bungalows out of the two buildings were unsold as at the year end. The authorities below have canvassed a view that annual letting value of such unsold flats/bungalows lying as stock-in-trade at the end of the year is income chargeable to tax under the head `Income

Dy CIT Dd-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 11/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Company Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 180 (Del), the AO computed the annual letting value of the unsold flats u/s.23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act') at Rs.1,47,65,688/- and made addition ... properties. Certain flats/bungalows out of the two buildings were unsold as at the year end. The authorities below have canvassed a view that annual letting value of such unsold flats/bungalows lying as stock-in-trade at the end of the year is income chargeable to tax under the head `Income

Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Ciecle-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1954/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Company Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 180 (Del), the AO computed the annual letting value of the unsold flats u/s.23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act') at Rs.1,47,65,688/- and made addition ... properties. Certain flats/bungalows out of the two buildings were unsold as at the year end. The authorities below have canvassed a view that annual letting value of such unsold flats/bungalows lying as stock-in-trade at the end of the year is income chargeable to tax under the head `Income

M/S Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Central Circle- 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1953/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Company Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 180 (Del), the AO computed the annual letting value of the unsold flats u/s.23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act') at Rs.1,47,65,688/- and made addition ... properties. Certain flats/bungalows out of the two buildings were unsold as at the year end. The authorities below have canvassed a view that annual letting value of such unsold flats/bungalows lying as stock-in-trade at the end of the year is income chargeable to tax under the head `Income

DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Mayank Jashwantlal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6364/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6364/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Circle-4(1)(2), Mayank Jashwantlal Shah, R. No. 642, 6Th Floor, ‘A’ Aidun Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 1St Dhobhi Talao, John Crasto Vs. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Lane, Mumbai-400 002 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aahps3906Q (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No. 247/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mayank Jashwantlal Shah, बनाम/ Dcit, Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. P. Rastogi, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Hiro Rai, Ld. Ar सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 14.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 27.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.08.2018 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-9, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 2

For Appellant: Shri R. P. Rastogi, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Hiro Rai, Ld. AR
Section 2Section 22Section 23(2)

unit, "prima facie, appears to be correct. In that event, the claim of the assessee that the property being a SOP no deemed annual letting value can be charged, is acceptable. 10. However, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while rejecting assessee's claim has observed that no supporting evidence

Yash Vardhan Arya, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation) Ward-1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 203/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

However, the CIT(A) directed the assessee to show cause why income from house property should not be calculated on the basis of Annual Letting Value (ALV) as per section 23(1)(a) of the I.T.Act. To the proposed enhancement notice, the assessee filed objection vide its reply dated ... that the intention of letting out the property was to be seen for invoking clause (c) of section 23 (1) for computing the annual letting value of the property and it was irrelevant whether the property is/was let out. [Para II] Therefore, the sole dispute, in the instant case

Bombay Real Estate Development Co. P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-1(1)-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 513/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal a/wFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. A.R
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

fact that matter is sub-judice before Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the Assessing Officer vide impugned reassessment proceedings sought to levy tax on annual letting value of unsold property by treating the same as income from house property. In this regard it is relevant to note that Hon‟ble Supreme

Areen Consultants P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 10(3), Mumbai

ITA 3544/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 13,06,812/- made by DCIT (OSD) 10(3) to income from house property based on annual letting value of 2% of the investment.” 5. The Ld. Authorised Representative of the Appellant appearing before us contended that the reassessment proceedings are liable

Sopariwala Exports, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 1271/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2011-12
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 148Section 23Section 24Section 24(3)

learned Assessing officer erred in addition back the society maintenance to the total income as per return instead of adding the same to Annual letting value. 2 Sopariwala Exports 3. Brief facts : The assessee has filed its return of income u/s 139 of the Income ... including society maintenance charges is also charged by the housing society to members (landlord) whose properties are let-out. Therefore, while determining the annual letting value (ALV) of the property, the sum for which the property might be reasonably expected to be let from year to year, the nonoccupancy charges

Cresent Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 1272/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 23Section 24

including society maintenance charges is also charged by the housing society to members (landlord) whose properties are let-out. Therefore, while determining the annual letting value (ALV) of the property, the sum for which the property might be reasonably expected to be let from year to year, the non-occupancy ... charges paid to the society has to be taken into account. When it is taken into account, the annual letting value (ALV) would be considerably reduced. Because payment of non-occupancy charges is inextricably linked with the letting out of the property even though there is no provision in sec.24

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai

ITA 3823/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Singh
Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

also dismissed. 27. Additionally, in A.Y. 2011-12 the Department has raised a ground in respect of annual letting value of certain flats owned by the assessee. The said ground of appeal is reproduced as under: - "2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... owner of certain flats in the building known as Central Garden Complex. The said flats were vacant and, accordingly, the assessee offered annual letting value of the flat as per the municipal ratable value. The AO disagreed with the amount of annual ratable value offered by the assessee and proceeded

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai

ITA 3822/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Singh
Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

also dismissed. 27. Additionally, in A.Y. 2011-12 the Department has raised a ground in respect of annual letting value of certain flats owned by the assessee. The said ground of appeal is reproduced as under: - "2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... owner of certain flats in the building known as Central Garden Complex. The said flats were vacant and, accordingly, the assessee offered annual letting value of the flat as per the municipal ratable value. The AO disagreed with the amount of annual ratable value offered by the assessee and proceeded

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai

ITA 3821/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Singh
Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

also dismissed. 27. Additionally, in A.Y. 2011-12 the Department has raised a ground in respect of annual letting value of certain flats owned by the assessee. The said ground of appeal is reproduced as under: - "2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... owner of certain flats in the building known as Central Garden Complex. The said flats were vacant and, accordingly, the assessee offered annual letting value of the flat as per the municipal ratable value. The AO disagreed with the amount of annual ratable value offered by the assessee and proceeded

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai

ITA 3820/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Singh
Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

also dismissed. 27. Additionally, in A.Y. 2011-12 the Department has raised a ground in respect of annual letting value of certain flats owned by the assessee. The said ground of appeal is reproduced as under: - "2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... owner of certain flats in the building known as Central Garden Complex. The said flats were vacant and, accordingly, the assessee offered annual letting value of the flat as per the municipal ratable value. The AO disagreed with the amount of annual ratable value offered by the assessee and proceeded