← All Phrases

“self occupied property”

Income HeadsSection 23(2)Section 23(2)67 judgments

HARIDOSS GNANAPRAKASAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-22(1), TAMBARAM

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

ITA 2263/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2263/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. R. Raj Kapoor, C.A ()For Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT
Section 250

provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 only Rs. 2,00,000/- is allowable against the housing loan interest, therefore Income From self occupied property has resulted in a loss of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Housing Loan interest certificate (Annexure 6) is available on record issued by the GIC Housing

BIPIN BABU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

ITA 380/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

Assessing Officer found that assessee owned three house properties, out of which one house property No. 14, Kamla Bihar Colony, Mathura was self occupied property and remaining two houses No. 4, Kailash Enclave, Balaji Nagar, Kamla Nagar and house No. 16, Kamla Bihar Colony, Mathura were treated

BIPIN BAU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

ITA 379/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

Assessing Officer found that assessee owned three house properties, out of which one house property No. 14, Kamla Bihar Colony, Mathura was self occupied property and remaining two houses No. 4, Kailash Enclave, Balaji Nagar, Kamla Nagar and house No. 16, Kamla Bihar Colony, Mathura were treated

BIPIN BABU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

ITA 378/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

Assessing Officer found that assessee owned three house properties, out of which one house property No. 14, Kamla Bihar Colony, Mathura was self occupied property and remaining two houses No. 4, Kailash Enclave, Balaji Nagar, Kamla Nagar and house No. 16, Kamla Bihar Colony, Mathura were treated

BIPIN BABU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

ITA 377/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

Assessing Officer found that assessee owned three house properties, out of which one house property No. 14, Kamla Bihar Colony, Mathura was self occupied property and remaining two houses No. 4, Kailash Enclave, Balaji Nagar, Kamla Nagar and house No. 16, Kamla Bihar Colony, Mathura were treated

KAILAS KANTILAL KOTHARI,NASHIK vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1957/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Joshi, AR (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT (virtual)
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

contended that rental income received from Kotak Mahindra Bank, has been again added in the hands of the assessee for the self-occupied property. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee requested for not pressing the legal issue and, therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed ... bone of contention of the assessee is that for the income on house property wherein the assessee has earned NIL income for self-occupied property and the interest from housing loan has been claimed. Secondly, the assessee has also other immovable property, which has been let out for major part

AZIM HASHAM PREMJI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1323/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huligal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Thejaswi G V, JCIT-DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(c)Section 250

cost of the property. Thereafter show cause notice was issued for which the assessee requested to consider the Yercaud property as self occupied property. The AO had estimated the net deemed rental value of the other two properties at Rs. 1,62,932/- and Rs. 1,29,910/-. The said

AZIM HASHAM PREMJI ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1322/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huligal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Thejaswi G V, JCIT-DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(c)Section 250

cost of the property. Thereafter show cause notice was issued for which the assessee requested to consider the Yercaud property as self occupied property. The AO had estimated the net deemed rental value of the other two properties at Rs. 1,62,932/- and Rs. 1,29,910/-. The said

ASHA BURMAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 46(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 544/DEL/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24

assessee in the first round contended that she has occupied part of the property for her residential purposes and was using as self occupied property and some part of the building i.e. third floor of the property was let out. To verify this fact the Tribunal restored the mater back ... owner of residential property situated at 23, Kautilya Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. Since the date of purchase, the property has been occupied as self-occupied property and till date is also living therein. The property consists of four floors (ground and three floors). 2. For the first time, the third

ASHA BURMAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 46(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 543/DEL/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24

assessee in the first round contended that she has occupied part of the property for her residential purposes and was using as self occupied property and some part of the building i.e. third floor of the property was let out. To verify this fact the Tribunal restored the mater back ... owner of residential property situated at 23, Kautilya Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. Since the date of purchase, the property has been occupied as self-occupied property and till date is also living therein. The property consists of four floors (ground and three floors). 2. For the first time, the third

ASHA BURMAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 46(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 542/DEL/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24

assessee in the first round contended that she has occupied part of the property for her residential purposes and was using as self occupied property and some part of the building i.e. third floor of the property was let out. To verify this fact the Tribunal restored the mater back ... owner of residential property situated at 23, Kautilya Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. Since the date of purchase, the property has been occupied as self-occupied property and till date is also living therein. The property consists of four floors (ground and three floors). 2. For the first time, the third

ASHA BURMAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 46(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 541/DEL/2024[AY 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24

assessee in the first round contended that she has occupied part of the property for her residential purposes and was using as self occupied property and some part of the building i.e. third floor of the property was let out. To verify this fact the Tribunal restored the mater back ... owner of residential property situated at 23, Kautilya Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. Since the date of purchase, the property has been occupied as self-occupied property and till date is also living therein. The property consists of four floors (ground and three floors). 2. For the first time, the third

ASHA BURMAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 46(1), NEW DLEHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 540/DEL/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24

assessee in the first round contended that she has occupied part of the property for her residential purposes and was using as self occupied property and some part of the building i.e. third floor of the property was let out. To verify this fact the Tribunal restored the mater back ... owner of residential property situated at 23, Kautilya Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. Since the date of purchase, the property has been occupied as self-occupied property and till date is also living therein. The property consists of four floors (ground and three floors). 2. For the first time, the third

SHAMSUNDAR HERAMBA NAIK,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1564/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr.Shamsundar Heramba Naik, Vs. Dcit - 3(3)(1), No.1/1, F-3, Petals, Chinnappa Garden Link Hmt Building, Road Benson Town, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 046,Karnataka. Pan : Afqps 8488 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S,Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(1)Section 24

only interest paid on the let out property has been claimed in the income tax return and the interest paid on self occupied property was not claimed in the income tax return. The address of the let out property is No.16, Survey No.30, Raksha Nikunj, Bengaluru – 562 149. Assessee claimed ... loss from house property only on the above let out property and addresss of the self occupied property is Petals, 11 F3 Chinnappa Garden Link Road, Bangalore – 560 046.Assessee had borrowed from Bajaj Fin Serve. Assessee furnished interest certified issued by Bajaj Fin Serve. In fact it was observed that

CHANDER MOHAN BHATI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 732/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra,CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)

wrong, unjust and\nhas erred in law\n(a) in confirming disallowance of Rs.55445/- claimed by the appellant on\naccount of interest on self occupied property u/s 24(b) of the IT Act, 1961\nallegedly on the ground that the appellant is only co-applicant of the\nhousing loan ... assessment order, the Assessing Officer observed\nthat the assessee had claimed deduction at Rs.55,445/- u/s 24(b) of the\nAct, on self occupied property, 17 Kalyan colony, Jaipur, but on perusal of\nthe assessment record for the assessment year 2011-12 relating to Smt.\nLaxmi Bhati it was revealed

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)

Smitaben N. Ambani Vs. CWT, reported in (2010) 323 ITR 104 (Born). wherein it was held that the basis on which a self-occupied property is valued under rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules and municipal ratable value is arrived at under the municipal law is the same ... High Court held that while 6 Ravi K Sheth AY 2017-18 applying the provisions of rule IBB for valuing the self-occupied property, municipal rateable value with addition of statutory deductions, if any, may be adopted instead of standard rent, for arriving at the gross maintainable rent. Respectfully following

GOMATHI,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORP. WARD 9(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1504/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1504/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19 Gomathi, Dcit, No. 13/51, Kongu Salai, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 9(1). Egmore, Chennai. Chennai –600 008. [Pan:Asmpg-0601-K] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. Pradeep, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit.

For Appellant: Mr. Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24

declared income from three house properties under the head ‘income from house property’. We note that the assessee has claimed one property as self occupied property and other two properties as deemed let out properties. During the impugned assessment year the assessee has shown rent of Rs.1

BINDUMALYAM PANDURANGA ALLANHARINARAYAN ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

ITA 107/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44A

order\nof the AO and all the additions made by him except with respect\nto the relief of annual letting value on self-occupied property.\n14,80,788\n2.\nThe CIT(A) ought to have quashed the assessment order on the\nground that it went beyond the scope ... Road on which the income has been offered to tax.\nFurther, the residential house which is located at J.P. Nagar was\ntreated as self-occupied property. As regards OMVR Layout is\nconcerned, it is a vacant plot of land & hence, the provisions of\nsection

KAMINI KRISHNA KOTAK ,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

The appeals are allowed while Ground No

ITA 6640/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2012-2013
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

considered as combined single unit. Further the\nRevenue has also challenged that earlier assessee had claimed\nFlat No. 17B as self occupied property.\n10. Upon careful consideration, we find that since there is an\nITAT order in the case of co-owner, which has not been set aside ... nOfficer shall consider this additional evidence and decide\naccordingly. We further hold that there is no estoppel against the\nassessee in now offering self occupied property and deemed let\nout property in a different manner than that offered initially.\nAssessee is very much entitled to plan its taxation

KAMINI KRISHNA KOTAK ,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

The appeals are allowed while Ground No

ITA 6610/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Y. P. Trivedi, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

considered as combined single unit. Further the Revenue has also challenged that earlier assessee had claimed Flat No. 17B as self occupied property. 10. Upon careful consideration, we find that since there is an ITAT order in the case of co-owner, which has not been set aside ... Officer shall consider this additional evidence and decide accordingly. We further hold that there is no estoppel against the assessee in now offering self occupied property and deemed let out property in a different manner than that offered initially. Assessee is very much entitled to plan its taxation

Showing 1–20 of 67 · Page 1 of 4