“unrealised rent”

Income HeadsSection 23(1)Section 23(1)7 judgments

WEIR MINERALS (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4713/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy[Assessment Year 2012-13]

regard to Ground No. 1(ii), Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition solely on the ground that licensee has deducted TDS on the unrealised rent. Yes, the licensee has deducted TDS and declared the same in the TDS return. They have complied with the advance tax provisions

CLASSIC MALL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5320/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR &

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

Classic Mall Development Company Limited, AY 2016-17 as well as CBDT circular (supra), where legislative intention always existed to factor in vacancy and unrealised rent from the house property, while computing annual value. Prior to the amendment, there was an explicit allowance u/s.24(2)(ix) which gave vacancy allowance

MILAN THEATRES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(3)(1), , MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 5040/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Tribunal 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant company's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in not quashing the impugned penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 totally ignoring the fact that the quantum appeal has been allowed in favor of the appellant company by Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in ITA No. 79/Mum/2019 vide order dated 31.03.2022, that was brought to knowledge of the Ld. Commissioner o

For Appellant: Letter FileFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Meshram, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

property as well as paid during this year. Irrespective of how it is being claimed, whether it is claimed in regular rent or unrealised rent, it does not make any difference. Hence there is no ground for rejecting the claim of property tax paid. For the said reasons we direct ... assessee. The fair way to deal with the issue is, the assessee should be allowed the adjust the service tax paid against the unrealised rent first and the balance alone should be the rent realised. That being so we find merit in the contention of the assessee that the amount

CHHOTELAL GANGAPRASAD DUBEY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3728/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhchhotelal Gangaprasad Vs. Acit 24(1) Dubey, 1005, Blue 6Th Floor, Piramal Mountain, Shastri Nagar, Chambers, Lalgaug, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400013 Mumbai – 400 058 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaepd9496P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Aditya Maheshwari Respondent By : S. Arunkumar Date Of Hearing 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 30.08.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Erred In Upholding Action Of Income Tax Officer Of Adopting Deemed Rent Of Let Out Property At Rs.10,23,000 Without Considering The Facts That Property Was Not Lying Vacant. Due To Acute Financial Problem At The End Of Tenant, Rent Could Not Be Recovered. More Over The Tenant Has Also Not Claimed Any Expenses On Account Of Rent For The Same. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Erred In Upholding Actions Of Income Tax Officer Without Considering Written Submissions & Details Filed By The Ar Of Assessee On 24Th November 2022.” 2. Fact In Brief Is That Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,50,770/- Was Filed On 27.10.2018. The Revised Return Of Income

For Appellant: Aditya MaheshwariFor Respondent: S. Arunkumar

Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 23(4)Section 23(4)(C)

himself was the managing trustee and assessee had neither shown any rental income from the said trust nor initiated any action to recover the unrealised rent. 4. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. Counsel submitted that the premises was let out during the F.Y. relevant

DCIT CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JAH DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 8764/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

rent for the property given along with all the assets. 5.7 As per Rule 4 of the Income Tax Rules, it is stated that:- "Unrealised rent. For the purposes of the Explanation below sub-section (1) of section 23, the amount of rent which the owner cannot realize shall

DCIT CIRCLE-13(), NEW DELHI vs. JAH DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 5377/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

MILAN THEATRES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO ,CIRCLE -12(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 76/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blem/S. Milan Theatres Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – Circle – 12(3)(4) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cts 156, D.B. House Yashodham Mumbai - 400020 Goregaon (E), Mumbai -400063 Pan: Aafcm6714R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ritu Kamal Kishor Department By Shri Neha Thakur

For Appellant: Shri Ritu Kamal Kishor

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 25A

assessee and thus, the computation has to be in accordance with the provisions of section 23 and 24 of the Act. Accordingly, the unrealised rent is also subject to claim of deduction as provided for under section 23 and 24 of the Act. If the intention of legislation was otherwise ... benefit of deduction. Further the DR also argued that there is no point in treating the service tax paid by the assessee as unrealised rent and thus, no deduction can be allowed in respect of service tax. 9 M/s. Milan Theatres Pvt. Ltd., 13. Considered the rival submissions