← All Phrases

“Section 23(1)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 23Section 23(1)(b)24 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 23(1)(b) is Commissioner of Income Tax v. J. K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd. (248 ITR 723), cited in 47 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 23(1)(b)

Commissioner of Income Tax v. J. K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd.
248 ITR 723 · 2001 · High Court
47
citing judgments

The annual value of house property under Section 23 of the Income Tax Act cannot include notional interest on interest-free security deposits received from tenants. Notional interest cannot be added to an interest-free security deposit to arrive at the annual value for income from house property.

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.

CIT v. Gundecha Builders
102 Taxmann.com 27 · 2019 · High Court
31
citing judgments

The deemed rental value of unsold flats held as stock-in-trade is covered by Section 23(4)(b), and a subsequent amendment provided relief for unsold flats by making their annual value NIL for two years from the end of the financial year of obtaining the completion certificate.

M.V. Sonavala v. CIT
177 ITR 246 · 1989 · High Court
27
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer can determine the annual value of a property based on what it might reasonably be let for from year to year or its annual ratable value, especially when rent is not charged or is below market rates. This approach is permissible under Section 23(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Satya Co. Ltd.
75 Taxmann 193 · 1994 · High Court
27
citing judgments

The annual value fixed by municipal authorities can serve as a rational yardstick for determining the annual value of a property for income tax purposes, provided it bears a close proximity to the assessment year. Changes in circumstances that affect the annual value must be considered.

ACIT v. Samrat Rice Mills (P.) Ltd.
23 Taxmann.com 350 · 2012 · High Court
11
citing judgments

A decision of the Delhi Tribunal in ACIT vs. Samrat Rice Mills (P) Ltd. (2012) 23 taxmann.com 350 (Delhi) is not relevant when an addition has been deleted due to the availability of surplus interest-free funds with the assessee, irrespective of whether the funds were used for business or non-business purposes.

CIT v. Poddar Bros (P) Limited
240 ITR 925 · 1999 · High Court
11
citing judgments

The annual letting value (ALV) of a property for income tax purposes is to be determined on the basis of the municipal valuation, unless the actual rent received is higher. The municipal valuation is not binding on the Assessing Officer if the actual rent is demonstrably higher.

Judgments citing Section 23(1)(b)

Omprakash Ramsurat Yadav, Mumbai vs. DCIT- Circle 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 4870/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav: A.Y. : 2015-16 Omprakash Ramsurat Yadav Vs. Dcit-Circle 24(1) 1403-A, Rna Heights, Mumbai J.V.L.R. Road (Respondent) Andheri East Mumbai- 400 093 Pan : Aalpy7169F (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Aamod PrabhudesaiFor Respondent: Shri Kiran K Chhatrapati Sr.DR
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 21(3)Section 23Section 23(1)(b)

actual rent received which according to the appellant is higher than the fair rent of Rs.17.70 lakhs in accordance with the provisions of Section 23(1)(b) of the Act. It is submitted that in appellant’s own case for A.Y.2013-14 and 2014-15, the ld. CIT(A) had accepted

Padam Chand Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 35(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7418/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Padam Chand Gupta, Vs. Assistant Commissioner 1-C Court Road Civil Lines Of Income Tax, Income Tax Delhi 110054 Circle 35(1) New Delhi Pan No. Aanpg5120C (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

property has to be determined as per the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Act. We consider it appropriate to refer to Section 23(1)(b) of the Act which is read as under: (1) For the Purpose of section 22 the annual value of any property shall ... rent control legislation. If this contention of assessee is correct, then the house property income has to be determined under the provisions of section 23(1)(b) property income has to be assessed under section 23(1)(a). Section 23(1)(a) & (b) being relevant provisions otherwise the house applicable

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)

case of assessee, these eight units were not let out even for a single day in the whole year. Provisions contained in sections 23(1)(b) and 23(1)(c) would apply only to those properties which were actually let out and for which rent was actually received or receivable

Arti Sareen, New Delhi vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2087/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. Aditi Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 154(2)Section 23

that inspite of the clear directions of the ld. DRP at para 4.4.3, the Assessing Officer has not considered the clauses of Section 23(1)(b) and Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The ld. DR fairly submitted that the matter must be restored to the Assessing Officer

ACIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gentex Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 196/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Parwani, Sr. DR

from year to year. The actual receipt of rent was irrelevant. By the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 w.e.f. 1.4.1976, Section 23(1)(b) was introduced, whereby it was provided that if the actual rent received by an assessee is in excess of the sum for which, the property might ... taken as the annual value of the property". 27. From the aforesaid Circular, it is clear that the law prior to introduction of section 23(1)(b)was that annual value was equal to Municipal Valuation of the property. The above circular gives an indication as to how the expression

Laila Rustom Jehangir, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, International Tax-Ward-3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3077/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhlaila Rustom Jehangir Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1St Floor, 41/44, International Tax- Ward Shapoorji Pallonji Centre, 3(1)(1), Air India Building Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aacpj7267L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dhrmesh Shah & Ms. Mitali Parekh Respondent By : Anil Sant Date Of Hearing 18.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08.02.2024

For Appellant: Dhrmesh Shah &For Respondent: Anil Sant
Section 23Section 24

23(1)(b). We find the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Varma Family Trust (supra) has held that section 23(1)(b) proceeds on the basis of actual rent received or receivable and therefore all the outgoings for earning the said rental income would be admissible

M/S Peringattu Health Foundation Private, Ernakulam vs. ITO Corporate Ward 2(3), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 23/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathi Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 12Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24(1)(b)

assessed at it’s annual value, defined as the rent reasonably expected on being let from year to year (s. 23(1)(a)). Sections 23(1)(b) and (c) provide for adjustment to the said value on account of actual rent, received or receivable, being either higher or lower

ACIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gentex Merchants Private Lmited, Mumbai

ITA 853/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2023AY 2014-2015
For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 143(3)

case of CIT Vs. J.K. Investors (Bom.) Ltd. : [2001] 248 ITR 723. The Tribunal has concluded that as per provisions of Section 23(1)(b) of the Act higher of the municipal valuation or the actual rent received has to be adopted as the annual value. We note that

Mora] Finanz Corporation, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

ITA 155/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 22

value is to be determined under section 23(4) read with section 23(1). [Para 11] Section 23(1) has three sub sections. Section 23(1)(b) and (c) would apply only to those properties which were actually let out and for which rent was actually received or receivable

Moraj Finanz Corporation, Navi Mumbai vs. Dclt Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

ITA 154/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 22

value is to be determined under section 23(4) read with section 23(1). [Para 11] Section 23(1) has three sub sections. Section 23(1)(b) and (c) would apply only to those properties which were actually let out and for which rent was actually received or receivable

Moraj Finanz Corporation, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

ITA 153/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 22

value is to be determined under section 23(4) read with section 23(1). [Para 11] Section 23(1) has three sub sections. Section 23(1)(b) and (c) would apply only to those properties which were actually let out and for which rent was actually received or receivable

Bharat K. Sheth, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, two appeals for AY 2000-01 and 2005-06 are partly allowed and Appeal for AY 2006-

ITA 3143/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U Matkarni, DR
Section 220

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

Bharat K. Sheth, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, two appeals for AY 2000-01 and 2005-06 are partly allowed and Appeal for AY 2006-

ITA 3142/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U Matkarni, DR
Section 220

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

Bharat K. Sheth, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, two appeals for AY 2000-01 and 2005-06 are partly allowed and Appeal for AY 2006-

ITA 3141/MUM/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U Matkarni, DR
Section 220

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

Vama Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known As Vama Department Store Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 957/MUM/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Uranda U. Matkari
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS

Vama Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known As Vama Department Store Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 956/MUM/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Uranda U. Matkari
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS

Vama Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known As Vama Department Store Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 955/MUM/2020[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Uranda U. Matkari
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS

Vama Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known As Vama Department Store Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 954/MUM/2020[2003-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2003-03

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Uranda U. Matkari
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS

Vama Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known As Vama Department Store Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 953/MUM/2020[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Uranda U. Matkari
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS

Vama Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known As Vama Department Store Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 952/MUM/2020[200-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Uranda U. Matkari
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS