“Section 23(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 23Section 23(1)194 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 23(1) is CIT v. Tip Top Typography (368 ITR 330), cited in 161 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 23(1)

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. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd.

296 ITR 661 · 2008 · High Court

129

citing judgments

Income from unsold flats held as stock-in-trade by a builder or developer is assessable as business income, not income from house property, for assessment years prior to the insertion of Section 23(5) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Sridev Enterprises

192 ITR 165 · 1991 · High Court

125

citing judgments

Interest expenditure on borrowed funds, especially when used for making advances, should generally be allowed under Section 36(1)(iii) if its nature and business expediency remain consistent with previous assessment years. The character of an outstanding amount at the start of an accounting year is considered the same as at the end of the prior year, reinforcing the rule of consistency.

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

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.

Keshav Mills Ltd. v. CIT

23 ITR 230 · 1953 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Income taxability depends on the real nature of the receipt and actual or constructive receipt of income, not merely on book entries. An amount is only "deemed to be received" if explicitly provided by the Income Tax Act, not by an assessee's unilateral intention.

CIT v. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd.

352 ITR 583 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A for interest expenditure is not justified if an assessee uses its own interest-free funds for investments generating exempt income, and borrowed funds are entirely utilized for business purposes, without evidence of diversion to earn tax-free income.

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.

Judgments citing Section 23(1)

Babubhai Kanjibhai Sakaria, Jetpur vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 156/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 156/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Babubhai Kanjibhai Sakariya Vs. Ito, Wd 1(2)(1), Rajkot Plot No. 82 Satyam Park, Amarnagar Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Jetpur,(Rajkot-Gujarat) -360370 Road, Rajkot 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agnps7407C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 250Section 28

compensation in the year of receipt instead of in the year of transfer of the capital asset. The court considered the provisions of sections 23(1), 23(1-A) and section 23(2) of the Act as well as section 28 and section 34 ofthe Act of 1894 and observed ... that section 23(1-A) was introduced in the 1894 Act to mitigate the hard ship caused to the owner of the land who is deprived of its enjoyment by taking possession from him and using it for public purpose, because of the considerable delay and offering payment thereof

Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, Ground No

ITA 1091/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1091/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2021-22 Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta The Dcit बनाम/ B-1001, Juhu Trishul, Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Gulmohar Cross Road No.6 Ahmedabad – 380 015 Jvpd Vile Parle West Mumbai – 400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adfpg 7162 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J. C. Desai, Ca Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 14/12/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-2022. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri J. C. Desai, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 22Section 23(1)(c)Section 24Section 250

deemed rent in respect of five flats situated at Mumbai as against the deemed rent considered Nil as per provisions of section 23(1)(c) of the Act by your Appellant. (b) Your appellant prays that, on the facts and circumstances of the case ... assessee had offered deemed rent on these flats in earlier years; however, for the year under consideration, he reported nil deemed rent under section 23(1)(c) of the Act, claiming that the flats were intended to be let out but remained vacant due to the COVID-19 pandemic

Dosti Realty Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 6129/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 115JSection 14ASection 37(1)

considered as “business income” and not under the head “income from house property”. The Ld.AR submitted that provisions of section 23(1) is to determine annual value of the property and is not applicable to the unsold flats, as they are not meant for letting out but the same

Cotha Vinod Hayagriv, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 86/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri M. Monish Sowkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., JCIT-DR

Section 108ASection 22Section 250

confronted to the assessee and what are the basis for estimating the rent is also not brought out by the AO. As per section 23(1)(a) and (b) of the Act and the rent recewived by the assessee is more than the rent fixed by the BBMP which

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 519/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, \nvk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025 \nfu/k Zkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21\n\nSunil Kumar Agarwal \n395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside \nSanganeri Gate, Jaipur \ncuke \nVs. \nACIT, \nCentral Circle-2, \nJaipur \nLFkk;h y s[kk la-@thvk Zvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M \nvihykFkhZ@Appellant \ni zR;Fkh Z@Respondent\n\n\nvk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2025 \nfu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

Income-tax [1964] 51 ITR 757 (Madras) [10-12- 1962] as under- Headnotes:- Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 23(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Assessment - Additions to income Assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51 Whether where additions are made

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 513/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

Arun Pruthi, Rajouri Garden New Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), ITO

Accordingly, the addition made by the AO of Rs 8,40,000/- is restricted to Rs 6,12,000/- and the grounds raised in this respect stands partly allowed

ITA 6002/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(2)

this property, as supported by the legal principle that properties used for business or profession are not subject to notional rent under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act. However, with respect to the remaining two properties, i.e. property at Shop No 65, Vardhaman Fortune Mall( Having Notional/deemed Rent ... month) one of which is occupied by the appellant's son and the other was vacant/under repair, the deemed rent provisions under Section 23(1)(a) come into effect. The appellant contends that no rental income can be deemed from these properties, but it is settled law, as reiterated

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)

lower authorities erred in ignoring the decisions of the Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Court which had already interpreted the provisions of section 23(1)(a). 3) Without prejudice to the Ground No.1 above, the income from house property determined by the Assessing Officer is highly excessive and arbitrary ... facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that rateable value under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act of a property has to be determined as determined by the Municipal Authorities under the Corporation

Balai Adhikary, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 29(1), Kolkata

ITA 1178/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: The Tribunal. Moreover, The Delay Is Only A Short Period. Therefore, I Condone The Delay Of 30 Days & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

Section 23(1)Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

case, ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5,04,000/- as deemed income from properties to be let out under section 23(1) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 6315/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 23(1)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(VA)Section 9

rent out the flats but was unable to get the tenants for the full period. The assessee further contends that as per section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides for calculation of Annual Value, where the property or any part of the property ... then the amount so received or receivable by the assessee shall be deemed to be the annual value. Section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 reads as under: ITA No. 6315 & 6309/Mum/2024 CapaciteInfraprojects Limited; A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 23. (1) For the purposes of section

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 6309/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 23(1)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(VA)Section 9

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 3398/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL”A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 3397/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL”A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 3396/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL”A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 3395/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL”A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

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

failed to acknowledge that for deemed let-out properties, tenant details and rental agreements are not mandatory, as per the provisions of Section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. 5) The disallowance of interest on the ground of non-submissions of rent receipts is contrary

Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Sakariya, Rajkot vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.318/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Sakariya The Pr.Commissioner Of बनाम At Khajuri Gundala Income Tax-1, Rajkot. Post Station: Vavdi Vs. Amarnagar, Khajuri Gundala. Pan : Aslps 7027 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 263

additionalcompensation in the year of receipt instead of in the year of transfer of the capital asset. The court consideredthe provisions of sections 23(1), 23(1-A) and section 23(2) of the Act as well as section 28 and section 34 ofthe Act of 1894 and observed that ... section 23(1-A) was introduced in the 1894 Act to mitigate the hardshipcaused to the owner of the land who is deprived of its enjoyment by taking possession from him and using itfor public purpose, because of the considerable delay and offering payment thereof. To obviate MansukhbhaiKanjibhai Sakariya

Shrikant Basangouda Patil, Vijayapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed as indicated above

ITA 616/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2020-21 Shrikant Basangouda Patil, Devoor The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mannur To Devar Hipparagi, Dist: Ward – 1 & Tps, Bijapur Vijayapur,-586 120, Karnataka Pan No.Awapp 3391 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vinay K Kulkarni, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Adv Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025 O R D E R Per Prakash Chand Yadav:

For Appellant: Shri Vinay K Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Adv Standing Counsel

Section 143(3)

No.247/04/2025-GST, in which, it has been categorically clarified in para 2.2 that an agriculturist supplying raisins is not liable to be registered under section 23(1) of the CGST Act and is exempt from GST. Considering all these legal as well as factual aspects, we are of the considered view

Shree Infra, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 601/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aashish Pophare, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 23(1)Section 23(5)Section 263

part of the assessee’s closing stock, the assessee had not offered any notional rental income on the unsold flats as required under section 23(1) of the Act, which mandates the taxation of the deemed annual value of property held as stock-in-trade beyond one year from

Arun Pruthi, Rajouri Garden West Delhi vs. Assessing Officer (A.O)Ward 45(2), Civic Centre New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 257/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 69A

second substantive issue between the parties herein is that of deemed annual letting value of the assessee's corresponding house property(ies) under section 23(1)(a) of the Act involving a sum of Rs.8.40 lakhs assessed in the assessment order and restricted to Rs.6.12 lakhs in the lower appellate