← All Phrases

“Section 2(23)(1)(i)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(23)(1)(i)1 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(23)(1)(i) is CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. (341 ITR 467), cited in 108 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(23)(1)(i)

CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.
341 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
108
citing judgments

The Legislature abolished terminal depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) and the taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2), replacing these provisions with the requirement to reduce sale proceeds of depreciable assets from the block of assets.

Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT
386 ITR 500 · 2016 · Supreme Court
89
citing judgments

If an assessee company's main business object is to acquire and rent out properties, the rental income derived is taxable as 'Profits and gains of business or profession', rather than 'Income from house property', as the nature of the activity constitutes a business.

CIT v. Moni Kumar Subba
333 ITR 38 · 2011 · High Court
78
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. Gurnam Singh
327 ITR 278 · 2010 · High Court
66
citing judgments

For capital gains exemption under Section 54F, the new residential house is not required to be purchased exclusively in the assessee's own name; acquisition in joint names or in the name of a spouse qualifies for the exemption. This principle also applies to Section 54 due to their pari materia nature.

Mrs. Shiela Kaushish v. CIT
131 ITR 435 · 1981 · Supreme Court
64
citing judgments

Income-tax authorities cannot add notional interest on a tenant's deposit to the income from a house property, as there is no provision for this in Sections 22 or 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The annual value of a house property is determined by specific provisions within these sections, and not by hypothetical calculations.

CIT v. Ajax Products Ltd.
55 ITR 741 · 1965 · Supreme Court
63
citing judgments

A taxing statute must be strictly construed: the subject is not to be taxed unless the charging provision clearly and explicitly imposes the obligation, without room for intendment or implication. There is no equity about a tax, and nothing is to be read into or implied within the language used.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2, Meerut v. Canara Bank Securities Ltd.
114 Taxmann.com 545 · 2020 · Supreme Court
57
citing judgments

Property held as stock-in-trade is not assessable under the head 'Income from House Property' (Section 23). An Assessing Officer's decision not to tax such income, when supported by inquiry, typically cannot be considered erroneous and prejudicial under Section 263.

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.

Judgments citing Section 2(23)(1)(i)

Amcell E Services, Patiala vs. ITO, W-2, Patiala

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 806/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1057250796(1) Dt. 20/10/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Assessee Pan Is Aaxfa0904A. The A.Y. Is 2017-18 Corresponding To The F.Y. From 01/04/2016 To 31/03/2017. Factual Matrix 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal In Form No. 36 Before Us. 1. That The Cit(A) Appeal Decided The Appeal Ex-Party Without Providing Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard As Such The Order Is Liable To Deleted. 2. That The Addition Confirmed By Cit(A) Of Rs. 90,88,250/- Is Illegal & Against The Fact Of The Case. 3. That The Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Ao Has Accepted The Fact That The Bank Account In Question Is Already Incorporate In Personal Returns Of The Partner Shri Mukesh Kumar As Such The Same Has Resulted In Double Taxation.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet Duggal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 253

required to be enquired into first and then only assessment should be made in accordance with law. “Firm” has been defined under section 2(23)(1)(i)(iii) of Income Tax At and so also partner alongwith partnership. Under Section 2(31) person is too defined, which all the stakeholders