“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

The Kumar Family Trust, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New 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 2772/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

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, Center Circle-4, Delhi

ITA 2771/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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 2770/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

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)

Bengal Shapoorji Housing Development Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4641/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &

Section 23(5)Section 250

Bengal Shapoorji Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 2.1. The Ld CIT(A)/NFAC failed to appreciate that the annual letting value of the inventory as per the provisions of Section 23(5) shall be NIL and hence, the entire income from house property assessed ... order of Ld Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs 1,14,43,247/- u/s 23(5) being deemed rent w.r.to vacant flats [Annual letting value estimated at Rs 2,59,48,935/- being 8% of value of inventory) without appreciating that the Ld AO erred in estimating deemed rent

Bengal Shapoorji Housing Development Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4640/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &

Section 143(2)Section 23(5)Section 250

/NFAC may be quashed and set aside. 2. Merits 2.1. The Ld CIT(A)/NFAC failed to appreciate that the annual letting value of the inventory as per the provisions of Section 23(5) shall be NIL and hence, the entire income from house property assessed ... order of Ld Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs 1,14,43,247/- u/s 23(5) being deemed rent w.r.to vacant flats [Annual letting value estimated at Rs 2,59,48,935/- being 8% of value of inventory) without appreciating that the Ld AO erred in estimating deemed rent

Arihant Vastunirman Private Limited, Ratnagiri vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Kolhapur

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

ITA 448/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.448/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arihant Vastunirman Private Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Kolhapur. Limited, Office No.1, Siddhivinayak Community Hall, Shivaji Nagar, Siddhivinayak Nagar, Ratnagiri- 415612. Pan : Aakca4408K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23.10.2024 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition By The A.O. Of Rs.34,14,922/- Representing Notional Rental Income In Respect Of Unsold Flats Forming Part Of Closing Inventory Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 23(4)Section 23(5)

business income. Alternatively, it was also submitted by ld. Counsel of the assessee that the notional rent/deemed rent was calculated on the annual letting value determined by the Assessing Officer is on higher side. Ld. Counsel of the assessee also submitted that a new section i.e. section ... case of Jayant Avinash Dave vs. DCIT (supra), we hold that during the period under consideration deemed rent/notional rent on the annual letting value of flats/shops held as stock in trade cannot be calculated. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.34,14,922/- made

Vamona Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central -2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2507/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 22Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24Section 263

which it had not received advance, it was submitted that deemed rent to be applied on inventory. However, the AO held that Annual Letting Value (ALV) has to be determined for deemed rent on unsold area, and inventory against which advances have been received, deemed rent cannot be taxed ... Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. [ITA 212/2005] pronounced on 31.10.2012 held that assessee was liable to pay income tax on the annual letting value of unsold flats owned by it under the head 'Income from House property' under section 23(1) of the Act. Further, the Hon'ble High Court

Palm Grove Beach Hotel Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -13(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3858/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

no.3858/MUM/2024 Palm Grove Beach Hotel Pvt. Ltd. 2 annual letting value to 2.5% as against 8.5% determined vide assessment order dated 19.12.2019 as income from house property. 2. The brief facts related to the case state that the assessee is engaged in the business of development of housing complexes, industrial ... officer made disallowance of Rs. 22,59,926/- u/s. 14A of the Act r/w rule 8D of Income Tax Rule 1962, as deemed annual letting value of finished property held in stock. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before learned CIT(A), who partly allowed assessee's appeal in aforestated terms

Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, Deesa vs. The Pr.CIT-4, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 179/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, The Principal Commissioner Of 1, Paras Society, Neminathnagar Income-Tax-4, Vs. Road, Deesa, Gujarat-385535 Ahmedabad Pan : Afops 0131 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad [Herein- After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 03.03.2020, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Noted The Present Appeal To Be Barred By Limitation By 1355 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained That There Was, In Fact, No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Reason That The Assessee Had Inadvertently Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Before The Surat Bench Of The Itat Which, When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before It, Passed A Judicial Order Dated 21.11.2023 Dismissing The Appeal As Withdrawn, Noting The Fact That The Correct Jurisdiction Lay With The 2 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Pcit Ay : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 23Section 263Section 54F

which amounted to Rs.3,86,86,482/-. 4.1 Further he directed the AO to examine the issue of the Annual letting value of these residential house properties, identified by him to be owned by the assessee, to be taxable under the head “Income from house property“ as per Section ... purchase of land with houses made in the month of October, 2014 is concerned). The section 22 provides the determination of annual letting value in respect of the property consisting of any buildings or land appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is owner.” 18. The basis with the ld. PCIT

Shri Sanjay Gupta, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 68/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Umaid Singh Bhati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh K Das, Sr. DR

Section 23(1)(c)Section 24

almost whole year and the Casela Tower property was vacant for the whole year. Therefore, there is no question of considering the annual letting value of the aforesaid property for the impugned year under consideration. However, the Assessing Officer computed the Annual Lettable Value (“ALV”) of the property

Gigeo Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 1(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 97/NAG/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 40Section 40A(3)

Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (354 ITR 180) wherein it has been held that the annual letting value of unsold flats in the closing stock/inventory should be taxed under the head income from house property. 3. Any other ground that ... Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (354 ITR 180) wherein it has been held that the annual letting value of unsold flats in the closing stock / inventory should be taxed under the head income from house property. 6. Any other ground that

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir.-1(3), Nagpur vs. M/S Gigeo Construction Co.Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 488/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 40Section 40A(3)

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir.-1(3), Nagpur vs. M/S Gigeo Construction Co.Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 486/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 40Section 40A(3)

Mrs. Meena Ashwin Gogari, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-27(2), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 13/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal: A.Y : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143(1)Section 23(2)(a)Section 24

properties, out of which one property located at 1201 Sathe Residency, Sir Bhalchandra Road, Matunga, Mumbai 400 019 is “self-occupied property”. The Annual Letting Value of self occupied property shall be taken as NIL as per Section 23(2)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, while filing the return ... above said property as self-occupied property and declared NIL income. However, the software used by the assessee appears to have mentioned the Annual Letting Value of the said property as Rs.22,76,692/- even though ultimate income from the above said property was shown as NIL in the return

Deputy Commissioner Ofincome Tax -23(1), Mumbai vs. Laxmi Finance and Leasing Company Co-Op. Society Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4232/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Section 23(1)(a)

2 ITA No.4232/Mum/2023 & others M/s. Laxmi Finance and Leasing Company Co-operative Society Ltd., Maharashtra-400 012 BKC, Bandra East

Sumit Niranjankumar Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (It)-4, Mumbai

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

ITA 2564/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Blesumit Niranjankumar Shah Cit (It)-4, Mumbai A-1101, Quantum Park, Near Union Bank, Gulab Nagar, Khar (West), Mumbai 400 052. Pan Aahps1841E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh (CIT. DR)

Section 23Section 24Section 263

examine properly the interest expenditure claimed u/s 24(b) of the Act against the house properties and further, the AO did not compute Annual letting Value in respect of one of the properties. Accordingly, he 2 Sumit Niranjankumar Shah took the view that the assessment order is rendered erroneous

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

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2731/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Dcit, Vs Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ugf-15, Indraprastha Building, 21, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca0377R Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

Thereby, he made additions on three major issues i.e. INR 58,09,780/- on account of notional Annual Letting Value (“ALV”), in respect of vacant commercial/self-occupied capital assets, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act of INR 10,80,927/-, and disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB ... case for Assessment Years 1988-89 to 1998-99 reported in 354 ITR 180 (Del.HC). It was contended that the issue whether annual letting value of residential units held as stock in trade at the end of the year, was to be assessed under the head “income from house property

Deepak Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-19(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1423/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

Section 143(3)Section 24

latter one comes into play when there are more than ‘one’ house properties stipulating exercise of a specific option for the purpose computing annual letting value. We are of the considered view that section 23(4)(a) is complete self exhaustive code in itself dealing with the above latter case

Surana Mutha Bhansali, Pune vs. ACIT-Circle 5 Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1442/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 270A(1)Section 270A(9)Section 43CSection 80I

Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. reported in 354 ITR 180 (Delhi) imposed ALV on account of deemed rent on finished stock by adopting annual letting value at 7% of the investment cost of flats (WIP value). The CIT(A) confirmed the view of AO. On careful examination of the order ... case of M/s. Cosmopolis Construction (supra). Therefore, as discussed above, admittedly, the assessee shown unsold flats as finished stock and no annual letting value of deemed rent could be imposed on such unsold stock which were treated as stock-in-trade. Thus, the order of CIT(A) is not justified

Jewel Housing, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

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

ITA 892/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P BoraFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati

Section 143(3)Section 23(4)

fair market rent is taken at Rs.22,000/- per month per unit. The said flats were held vacant for entire year. Accordingly, Gross Annual Letting Value of them are Rs.29,04,000/- (22,000x12x11) after allowing standard deduction of 30% i.e. Rs.8,71,200/-, the net annual letting value comes