“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

Oberoi Realty Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4802/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 23(5)

Court in the case of Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co Ltd [2013] 354 ITR 180 (Del). Also in order to arrive at the annual letting value of the property, reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Radha Devi Dalmia ... Limited, Mumbai 2. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the annual letting value to 2.5% to the tune of Rs. 1,83,15,286/- as against Rs. 5,12,82,802/- made

Late Mahesh Ramanlal Modi L/H Manish Mahesh Modi, Bharuch vs. ACIT Circle-1, Bharuch

In the result, ground No. VII of appeal raised by the assessee is also allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 999/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Late Mahesh Ramanlal Modi, A.C.I.T., Through L-H Manish Mahesh Modi, Circle-1, Vs. Near Shakuntal Apartment, Dahej Bharuch. Bypass Road At Nandelav, Bharuch-392001 (Gujarat) Pan No. Adfpm 4030 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 23(5)Section 24Section 254(1)Section 40Section 69A

year under consideration. 6 Late Mahesh Ramanlal Modi through L/H-Manish Mahesh Modi Vs ACIT The Assessing Officer worked out the deemed annual letting value at the rate of Rs. 1.26 lacs after allowing standard deduction @ 30% and added to the income of assessee. 6. The Assessing Officer further noted that ... ACIT impugned property was received on 13/06/2023. Thus, considering the development permission dated 13/06/2023, we do not find any justification in estimating the annual letting value of the property i.e. Plot of land at R.S. No. 3, Vagusana, Bharuch. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition

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)

Income from House Property is made applying a deeming provision of section 23(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by estimating the Annual Letting Value of the residential house situated at 338. Khalapar, Muzaffarnagar. The ld AR submitted that the assessing officer has failed to appreciate the reasosns ... being used for the employees of the assessee, such as driver and labour. The alternative argument of the assessee of reducing the annual letting value of the said property has considerable force. Considering the nature and location of the said property, and the same being old construction and not being

ACIT - 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Sabarmati Capital One Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3687/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte Sethna - AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23(4)Section 23(5)Section 24Section 263

bring to tax, the income under the head income from house property in respect of the unsold flats lying with the assessee, annual letting value (ALV) need to be determined. Taking into consideration interest rate on Bank FD of 8% during period under consideration, the ALV of the same works

Sabarmati Capital One Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Ward-14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3633/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte Sethna – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23(4)Section 23(5)Section 24Section 263

Alka Rajesh Vanigota, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-52, Mumbai

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

ITA 6740/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2018-19 Alka Rajesh Vanigota, Deputy Commissioner Of 1001, 10Th Floor, Income Tax, Om Residency, Vs. Central Circle-4(2), 28 Gilder Lane, Mumbai Mumbai Central, Mumbai Pan : Acrpv6181E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vimal Punmiya For Revenue : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr.DR

Section 56(2)(x)

present case. The decision rendered by Delhi bench of Tribunal in the case of Smt Shivani Madan is related to assessment of Annual Letting value of the property, which is not the case here. The decision rendered by Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court is related to a civil dispute

Jaiprakash Khanchand Aswani, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Surat.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1130/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat16 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing) Jaiprakash Khanchand Aswani, A.C.I.T., Top Floor, Ason City, City Light Circle-1(2), Vs. Road, City Light, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Aaspa 3016 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

For Appellant: “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in not following the

Section 254(1)

unsold stock of flats and shops to taxation and taxed the same under income from ‘house property’ on the basis of deeming annual letting value. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to treat the income from unsold flat and commercial premises ... held as stock in trade by the assessee can be assessed under the head ‘income from house property’ by notionally computing the annual letting value from such property and the Coordinate Bench considering the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing

Inder Devi, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1696/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

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

Ferani Hotels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 3859/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay SawantFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 80

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance on merits considering the Annual Letting Value of unsold flats which is closing stock of the appellant, treated as “Income from House Property.” 2(b). On the facts and in the circumstances ... Property.” “1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIMAL is right on restricting the addition of annual letting value to 2.5% instead of @7% made by AO?” 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in late

Makewaves Sea Resorts Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3861/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrimakewaves Sea Rsorts Pvt. V/S. Dcit, Circle – 4(3)(1) Ltd. बनाम 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Construction House – B, Mumbai-400020 2Nd Floor, 623, Linking Road, Khar(West), Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacm0673J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Sanjaj B. SawantFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(3)Section 23(5)Section 250

business of running hotel and also undertakes construction and development of projects. The sole substantive issue involved in this appeal is whether the annual letting value of unsold flats, held by the assessee as inventory, can be treated as income from house property. The assessee has relied on several decisions ... unsold flats in stock in trade which the AO treated as property assessable under the head 'income from house property' and computed notional annual letting value on such unsold flats placing reliance on the decision in the case of Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (supra). The action

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai. vs. Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai

ITA 557/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [for short 'IT Rules'] (ii) Addition taking deemed annual letting value of the immovable properties lying vacant during the relevant previous year at INR.23,28,000/- (iii) Denial of claim of set off of accumulated

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai

ITA 556/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [for short ‘IT Rules’] (ii) Addition taking deemed annual letting value of the immovable properties lying vacant during the relevant previous year at INR.23,28,000/- (iii) Denial of claim of set off of accumulated ... read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [for short ‘IT Rules’] (ii) Addition taking the deemed annual letting value of the immovable properties lying vacant during the relevant previous year at INR.96,24,000/- (b) Increase/reduction made to the Book Profits computed under Section 115JB

Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 1 (1) (1), Mumbai

ITA 502/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya & Ms. Kaveeta Punit Kaushik Date Conclusion of hearing

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [for short `IT Rules'] (ii) Addition taking deemed annual letting value of the immovable properties lying vacant during the relevant previous year at INR.23,28,000/- (iii) Denial of claim of set off of accumulated

Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional -Joint -Deputy-Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- ITO, Delhi

ITA 302/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Fenil Bhatt For theFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya & Ms. Kaveeta Punit Kaushik Date Conclusion of hearing

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

Prafulla Kumar Malakar, Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(2), Kolkata vs. Kanya Kumari Properties Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 2027/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 35(1)(ii)

Bhaskar Mitter (supra), the Court has held thus: “8. The controversy raised in the second question is as to whether the annual letting value of the property determined by the Tribunal could be a figure lower than that returned by the assessee. The principles for determining the annual letting value ... income, is not taxable in law. The Tribunal, therefore, in our view did not commit any error in directing to fix the correct annual letting value of the premises in question, in accordance with the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act with reference to the municipal valuation, although

DCIT, Circle- 27(2), New Delhi vs. Wharton Engineers & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Wilful Finance Investment Co. Pvt.), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7841/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit Vs. Wharton Engineers & Circle 27 (2) Developers Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi (Earlier Willful Finance Investment Co.Pvt.) New Delhi Pan No.Aaacw0629C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37

rented property, were Wharton Engineers and Developers Private Limited, AY 2014-15, deductible from the rent while computing the annual letting value thereby reducing the income from House property. If business loss is reduced to this extent, House property income will also be reduced to that extent and accordingly, will

The Kumar Family Trust, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Delhi

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

ITA 2776/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)

must be held as a necessary implication that that partner is occupying the premises. Therefore, the Tribunal, was justified in holding that the annual letting value of the godown, owned by the assessee and used for the business carried on by him in partnership was not liable to be included ... Moni Kumar Subba (333 ITR 38) wherein it was held as follows: “13. The next question would be as to whether the annual letting value fixed by the Municipal Authorities under the Delhi Municipal purposes of section 23 of the Act. This question was answered in affirmative by the Calcutta

The Kumar Family Trust, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Delhi

ITA 2775/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)

The Kumar Family Trust, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

ITA 2774/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)

The Kumar Family Trust, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Delhi

ITA 2773/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)