← All Phrases

“self occupied property”

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

The decision most relied on for self occupied property is CIT v. Bhaskar Mitter (73 Taxmann 437), cited in 52 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on self occupied property

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.

CIT v. Smt. Prabhabati Bansali
141 ITR 419 · 1983 · High Court
36
citing judgments

The annual value of a house property for income tax purposes is to be determined based on the higher of the actual rent received or the annual value determined by the municipal/local authority, provided the municipal assessment is contemporaneous and reflects the true annual value. In cases where the property is self-occupied or not actually let, the municipal valuation serves as a reasonable guide for determining the annual letting value.

Emtici Engineering Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner
58 TTJ 27 · 1997 · ITAT
26
citing judgments

The annual letting value (ALV) of a property occupied by the owner or close relatives, in the absence of a better method, can be reasonably determined by applying a rate of interest on the cost of the building and land. An 8% return on cost may be considered fair and reasonable given the property's size, construction quality, and capital invested.

123 Taxman 790/256 ITR 73 (Raj.); Vivek Jain v. Asstt. CIT
14 Taxmann.com 146 · 2011 · High Court
22
citing judgments

The annual letting value (ALV) of a property that remains vacant for the entire year and is not self-occupied is to be determined as 'NIL' under section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

Sonu Realtors Pvt Ltd. v. DCIT (
139 ITD 504 · 2012 · ITAT
21
citing judgments

The annual value of a property that remained vacant throughout the year is to be assessed at 'NIL' under section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

(i) Shakuntala Devi v. DDIT, 31 CCH 32 (Bang.) (ii) Kamal Mishra vs. ITO
19 SOT 251 · 2008 · ITAT
16
citing judgments

The annual letting value of a property can be deemed NIL under Section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act when it is self-occupied with the intent of letting.

291 ITR 500 (SC) (paras 4, 12) CIT v. Sharma (H. P.)
122 ITR 675 · 1980 · High Court
14
citing judgments

The annual value of a property is its annual letting value. This is determined by the rent it would fetch if let out, even if it is self-occupied.

Judgments citing self occupied property

Kamini Krishna Kotak, Mumbai vs. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

The appeals are allowed while Ground No

ITA 6602/MUM/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2010-2011
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

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rakjot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 81/RJT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara | बनाम Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Vs. Pan: Aampl 3903 F Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोटन्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJКОТ BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 80/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/03/2025 : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

Diwanpara Police Station, Rajkot. In connection with the above it is submitted that the residential house at Rajkot was claimed by me as self occupied property in the wealth tax return filed for the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, it is requested to treat the other house property situated

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

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

ITA 79/RJT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

Diwanpara Police Station, Rajkot. In connection with the above it is submitted that the residential house at Rajkot was claimed by me as self occupied property in the wealth tax return filed for the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, it is requested to treat the other house property situated

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rakjot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 78/RJT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

Diwanpara Police Station, Rajkot. In connection with the above it is submitted that the residential house at Rajkot was claimed by me as self occupied property in the wealth tax return filed for the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, it is requested to treat the other house property situated

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The Actit, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 77/RJT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

Diwanpara Police Station, Rajkot. In connection with the above it is submitted that the residential house at Rajkot was claimed by me as self occupied property in the wealth tax return filed for the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, it is requested to treat the other house property situated

Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 76/RJT/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

Diwanpara Police Station, Rajkot. In connection with the above it is submitted that the residential house at Rajkot was claimed by me as self occupied property in the wealth tax return filed for the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, it is requested to treat the other house property situated

Sukhram Bhagwandas Kandhari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1101/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Sukhram Bhagwandas Kandhari Ito 1(2)(1) Brillanto House, Plot No. 61 Aayakar Bhavan Road No. 13, Chakala Midc Vs. M.K. Road Mumbai-400 093. Churchgate Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aadpk4772C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ThakwaniFor Respondent: Shri Haridas Bhat

appellant filed an appeal before the ITAT and raised two grounds of appeal. First ground relates to taxing the rent with respect to self occupied property and second one relates to not giving credit to the self assessment tax paid. 2. The same grounds raised before ... assessment. Similarly, it was pleaded that the appellant has got good case with regard to the addition made on annual letting value of self occupied property. In view of the same, it was requested that one 2 Sukhram Bhagwandas Kandhari opportunity may be give to explain the facts before

Navbharat Potteries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2700/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 22Section 23(1)(c)Section 250

clause to take out those properties from the ambit of the clause in which properties are held by the owner for selfoccupation i.e self occupied property (i.e SOP) because even income on account of SOP, excluding one such SOP of which annual value is to be adopted ... from the ambit of the clause which are held by the owner for self occupation purposes, because even though the „ALV" of one self occupied property so chosen by the assessee is taken at Nil, however the „ALV" of all the remaining self occupied properties are to be determined

Tanaji Parilal Gawade, Pune vs. ITO Ward 12(4) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1589/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 80C

absence of all these details, the claim of assessee u/s 80C of the Act of Rs.1,50,000/- being interest paid for self occupied property was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. 5. The Assessing Officer further noted from the bank statement of Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kharadi Branch, Pune

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)

assessee has submitted that the property in Goa is a residential property which was used by the assessee for its own use i.e. self-occupied property by relying on section 23 of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer found the explanation not that assessee ... Grounds No. 3. & 4 of AY 2013-14 and AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 (Denial of benefit of one- self occupied property) It is submitted that the appellant being a private discretionary trust 5.1 formed for the benefit of individual beneficiaries shall derive its status from the beneficiaries

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 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)

assessee has submitted that the property in Goa is a residential property which was used by the assessee for its own use i.e. self-occupied property by relying on section 23 of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer found the explanation not that assessee ... Grounds No. 3. & 4 of AY 2013-14 and AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 (Denial of benefit of one- self occupied property) It is submitted that the appellant being a private discretionary trust 5.1 formed for the benefit of individual beneficiaries shall derive its status from the beneficiaries

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 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)

assessee has submitted that the property in Goa is a residential property which was used by the assessee for its own use i.e. self-occupied property by relying on section 23 of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer found the explanation not that assessee ... Grounds No. 3. & 4 of AY 2013-14 and AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 (Denial of benefit of one- self occupied property) It is submitted that the appellant being a private discretionary trust 5.1 formed for the benefit of individual beneficiaries shall derive its status from the beneficiaries

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 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)

assessee has submitted that the property in Goa is a residential property which was used by the assessee for its own use i.e. self-occupied property by relying on section 23 of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer found the explanation not that assessee ... Grounds No. 3. & 4 of AY 2013-14 and AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 (Denial of benefit of one- self occupied property) It is submitted that the appellant being a private discretionary trust 5.1 formed for the benefit of individual beneficiaries shall derive its status from the beneficiaries

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)

assessee has submitted that the property in Goa is a residential property which was used by the assessee for its own use i.e. self-occupied property by relying on section 23 of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer found the explanation not that assessee ... Grounds No. 3. & 4 of AY 2013-14 and AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 (Denial of benefit of one- self occupied property) It is submitted that the appellant being a private discretionary trust 5.1 formed for the benefit of individual beneficiaries shall derive its status from the beneficiaries

The Kumar Family Trust, Delhi vs. ACIT, Center 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 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)

assessee has submitted that the property in Goa is a residential property which was used by the assessee for its own use i.e. self-occupied property by relying on section 23 of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer found the explanation not that assessee ... Grounds No. 3. & 4 of AY 2013-14 and AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 (Denial of benefit of one- self occupied property) It is submitted that the appellant being a private discretionary trust 5.1 formed for the benefit of individual beneficiaries shall derive its status from the beneficiaries

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 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)

assessee has submitted that the property in Goa is a residential property which was used by the assessee for its own use i.e. self-occupied property by relying on section 23 of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer found the explanation not that assessee ... Grounds No. 3. & 4 of AY 2013-14 and AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 (Denial of benefit of one- self occupied property) It is submitted that the appellant being a private discretionary trust 5.1 formed for the benefit of individual beneficiaries shall derive its status from the beneficiaries

Raj Kumar Aasudia, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-44(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7443/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarraj Kumar Aasudhia, Vs. Ito, Wz-29/3/1, Budela, Vikashpuri, Ward-44(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Adqpa9196E

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Gaba, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 54

respectively. It is not in dispute that the assessee had reinvested a sum of Rs 22,00,000/- on construction of self occupied property and claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act in respect of LTCG of Rs 21,95,885/-. Similarly it is not in dispute that the assessee ... reinvestment in new house and restricted the exemption u/s 54 of the Act for the other property (i.e construction of self occupied property) to Rs 19,76,885/- and made addition of Rs 2,20,000/- thereon. This addition was made on adhoc basis by disallowing 10% of construction cost

ACIT Circle 54(1), New Delhi vs. Swadesh Kumar Mishra, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee i

ITA 6043/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144(1)Section 145(3)Section 24Section 40Section 40A(3)

page 1 and 2 of assessment order and submitted that assessee has claimed payment of interest as allowable claim on the basis of self occupied property. He submitted that the Inspector was deputed to verify the claim of the assessee, as per the ITR reports, it was found that there ... proper. 10. On the other hand, the Ld AR made following Submissions on disallowance of deduction u/s 24(b) in respect of self occupied property: 10.1 The AO had disallowed the claim on the basis of the Inspector's report that the premises were demolished and the construction work

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

assessee has got five 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 of income of the year under consideration, the assessee marked the 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