“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

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

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

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

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

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

Harjeet Singh Kalra, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 29(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5446/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)

light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. Next comes the sole substantive issue of deemed annual letting value of the assessee’s shop no. 1, Devnagar, amounting to Rs.2 lakhs added by both the learned lower authorities. Learned departmental representative vehemently argues ... tenant Mohd. Arfi, s/o Gulam Rasood had already vacated the above stated house property, shop no. 1, Devnagar on 13.08.2016; and, therefore, his annual letting value computed for the entire relevant previous year could not be held as justifiable in nature. The same is directed to be deleted therefore

Arun Pruthi, Rajouri Garden New Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), ITO

Accordingly, the addition made by the AO of Rs 8,40,000/- is restricted to Rs 6,12,000/- and the grounds raised in this respect stands partly allowed

ITA 6002/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18

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

that the assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground raised herein seeks to reverse both 2 the learned lower authorities’ action assessing his annual letting value ‘ALV’ of the house property(ies) in question, as upheld in the lower appellate proceedings as under: “5.5 In respect of the addition made

Manoj Kumar Gangadharan, Bhopal vs. ITO (It and Tp) Bhopal, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 671/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 274

immunity from penalty proceedings u/s 270A. Assessee has submitted that due to some technical glitch while filing the return of income, the Annual Letting Value(ALV) of Rs. 1,80,000/- shown by the assessee has been reversed by the system. Assessee has quoted a few case laws in favour

Manoj Kumar Gangadharan, Bhopal vs. ITO (It and Tp) Bhopal, Bhopal

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 670/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 274

Precious Bjuildtech Private Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

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

ITA 66/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.66/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Precious Buildtech Pvt Ltd V. Pcit Harmony Apartment, Adiacent Income Tax Department, To Bedi International School, Bareilly-243001. Dental College Road, Pilibhit Bypass Road, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aagcp1255R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Mazhar Akram, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 09 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mazhar Akram, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

applicable to assessees who are engaged in business of construction of house property and are therefore liable to pay tax on annual letting value of unsold flats as “Income from house property”. (v) Besides, being the demonetization assessment year, the AO was required to examine the genuineness of the source

Ravi K Sheth, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1907/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Ravi K Sheth Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp , Income Tax -5(3)(1), Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai Vs. 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 (Pan : Aaips7341E) (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golvala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(4)

case of Flat No. 12B assessee has considered the same as deemed let out and computed income from house property by adopting the annual letting value as fixed by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. However, the Assessing Officer computed the annual rateable value of the property for Flat

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

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

ITA 3398/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

from the properties leased out should be assessed as “Business Income” or as “Income From House Property” and (ii) what should be the Annual Letting Value (ALV) for the purpose of Section 23 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) if income is assessable as “ Income From House Property ... completed under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) and while completing the assessment the AO computed the annual letting value in respect of unsold flats held as stock in trade by the assessees. The assessees contended before the AO that they are engaged

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

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

ITA 3397/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

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

ITA 3396/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

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

ITA 3395/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Dy. / Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 41(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4365/MUM/2025[2014-015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2025AY 2014-015

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.DR

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

allowed for statistical purposes. 34. The issue arising in ground No. 7, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to the addition to the annual letting value of the property let out to one of the partners of the assessee. 35. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused

Dosti Realty Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6128/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

High Court of Delhi in the case of Ansal Properties Infrastructure Ltd vs DCIT [354] ITR 180 (Del) wherein it was held that Annual Letting Value (ALV) even of work in progress in the hands of builders has to be taxed. He thus took 8.5% of the value of unsold

Janta Land Promoters Private Limited, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1) Chandigarh, Mohali

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 907/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 907/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम M/S Janta Land Promoters Pvt.Ltd. The Ito, Sco 39-42, Sector 82, Ward 6(1), Vs Mohali. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aabcj3450D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253(5)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

when are sold they are assessable under head "Income from Business", the Ld. A.O. is not correct in bringing to tax notional annual letting value in respect of these unsold flats under the head Income from House Property :- a) CR Developments (P) Ltd. vs. JCIT reported in ITA No. 4277/Mum/2012 ... assessable under the head 'income from business' when they are sold and therefore the AO is not correct in bringing to tax notional annual letting value in respect of those unsold flats under the head 'income from house property’. Thus, we direct the AO to delete the addition made under

Shree Infra, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 601/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aashish Pophare, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 23(1)Section 23(5)Section 263

unsold stock of flats, for which completion of certificate had been obtained in the prior years and which were lying vacant, for which annual letting value was required to be computed in terms of Section 23(5) of the Act, which came into effect from

Arun Pruthi, Rajouri Garden West Delhi vs. Assessing Officer (A.O)Ward 45(2), Civic Centre New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 257/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 69A

impugned partly confirmed addition as well, which stands deleted. 3. The second substantive issue between the parties herein is that of deemed annual letting value of the assessee's corresponding house property(ies) under section 23(1)(a) of the Act involving a sum of Rs.8.40 lakhs assessed

Nrb Bearings Limited, Mumbai vs. Joint Comissioner of Income Tax (OSD) - Circle 2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3019/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Makadia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

No.3807/MUM/2016, restored back the following issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh: a. Enhancement in the Annual Letting Value of House Property by Rs. 9,45,417/- and b. An addition of Rs. 2,01,00,257/-as long-term capital gains on sale

Nrb Bearings Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3018/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Makadia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

M/S. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1473/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.2627/िद"ी/2013(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1695 और 1696/िद"ी/2016(िन.व. 2009-10 और 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain & Ms. Manisha Sharma, Advocates &For Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 80I

Directors meeting Fee; & (iv) Directors traveling expenses. B. Ground no. 5 of appeal: Addition of Rs.64,98,414/- on account of Notional Annual letting Value of unsold vacant flats and commercial spaces held as stock in trade. C. Ground no. 6 to 9 of appeal are general in nature ... order of Tribunal needs reconsideration. 4.3. With regard to issue raised in Ground of appeal no. 5 relating to determination of Notional Annual Letting Value of residential units held as stock in trade, the ld. Counsel fairly stated that this issue has been decided against the assessee

M/S. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1696/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.2627/िद"ी/2013(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1695 और 1696/िद"ी/2016(िन.व. 2009-10 और 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain & Ms. Manisha Sharma, Advocates &For Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 80I

M/S. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1695/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.2627/िद"ी/2013(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1695 और 1696/िद"ी/2016(िन.व. 2009-10 और 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain & Ms. Manisha Sharma, Advocates &For Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 80I