← All Phrases

“Section 23(1)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 23Section 23(1)(a)98 judgments

M/S COAL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA

ITA 1407/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
Section 115J

{"clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA\nBefore\nSHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n

DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of

ITA 1550/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Icici Bank Limited, Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, Vs Aayakarbhavan, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue (Physical Hearing) Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Vs Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)(c)

interest to the aggregate rent and recomputed income from house property at Rs. 23,62,620/- thereby added Rs. 8,40,000/- under section 23(1)(a). On appeal before ld. CIT(A), the assessee was allowed relief on the basis of decision of Jurisdictional High Court

ICICI BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of

ITA 4418/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Icici Bank Limited, Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, Vs Aayakarbhavan, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue (Physical Hearing) Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Vs Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)(c)

interest to the aggregate rent and recomputed income from house property at Rs. 23,62,620/- thereby added Rs. 8,40,000/- under section 23(1)(a). On appeal before ld. CIT(A), the assessee was allowed relief on the basis of decision of Jurisdictional High Court

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

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

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

DOSTI REALTY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6128/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH

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

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

HERCULES HOISTS LIMITED,RAIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5445/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

contentions of the learned Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) are accepted, the appellant is entitled to deduction for vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c) of the Act as the said property remained vacant throughout the year. Without prejudice to the above, t is submitted that the income from house ... basis of municipal ratable value and it cannot exceed the same. It is submitted that the computation of income from house property under section 23(1)(a) of the Act is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the law. Total Tax Effect – Rs.4,42,101/- Hercules Hoists Limited

HERCULES HOISTS LIMITED,RAIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5444/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

contentions of the learned Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) are accepted, the appellant is entitled to deduction for vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c) of the Act as the said property remained vacant throughout the year. Without prejudice to the above, t is submitted that the income from house ... basis of municipal ratable value and it cannot exceed the same. It is submitted that the computation of income from house property under section 23(1)(a) of the Act is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the law. Total Tax Effect – Rs.4,42,101/- Hercules Hoists Limited

HERCULES HOISTS LIMITED,RAIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5443/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

contentions of the learned Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) are accepted, the appellant is entitled to deduction for vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c) of the Act as the said property remained vacant throughout the year. Without prejudice to the above, t is submitted that the income from house ... basis of municipal ratable value and it cannot exceed the same. It is submitted that the computation of income from house property under section 23(1)(a) of the Act is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the law. Total Tax Effect – Rs.4,42,101/- Hercules Hoists Limited

HERCULES HOISTS LIMITED,RAIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5442/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

contentions of the learned Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) are accepted, the appellant is entitled to deduction for vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c) of the Act as the said property remained vacant throughout the year. Without prejudice to the above, t is submitted that the income from house ... basis of municipal ratable value and it cannot exceed the same. It is submitted that the computation of income from house property under section 23(1)(a) of the Act is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the law. Total Tax Effect – Rs.4,42,101/- Hercules Hoists Limited

BINDUMALYAM PANDURANGA ALLANHARINARAYAN ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

ITA 107/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44A

fair rental value/municipal rental value of the property\nfor determining the annual value of the house property as per the\nprovisions of section 23(1)(a) of the Act, the notional value of\nRs.28,07,780/- (8.5% of Rs.3,30,32,716/-) is adopted as annual\nvalue for the purpose ... nhouse property\".\n\n9.2 Now more specifically, section 23 of the Act enumerate how\nthe annual value is to be determined. The relevant section 23(1) of\nthe Act is reproduced below for ease of reference & convenience-\n\nAnnual value how determined.\n23.\n(1) For the purposes of section

COTHA VINOD HAYAGRIV,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 85/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Years :2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.N. Balusamy, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 23(1)(a)

Page 3 of 5 months. Therefore, as per municipal value, the taxable annual value per month is R.29,598/- as per interpretation of section 23(1)(a) of the Act. The assessee has shown higher rental income. However, the contention of the assessee was rejected ... business activity. The Annual value is more than the BBMP annual value , therefore the asseseee has satisfied the conditions laid out in section 23(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. In the Hindu culture it is the duty of the parent to see that their children are settled down

VINOD KOHLI,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE 35(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 896/DEL/2021[2012 - 2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman\N\Nita No.896/Del/2021\N(Assessment Year: 2012-13)\N\Nsmt. Vinod Kohli,\Nc.W. – 66, Malibu Town,\Nsohna Road,\Ngurugram – 122 018 (Haryana).\N(Pan : Amipk8299D)\N(Appellant)\N\Nvs.\N\Nacit, Circle 35 (1),\Nnew Delhi.\N(Respondent)\N\Nassessee By : Ms. Monalisa Maity, Advocate\Nrevenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing : 13.03.2025\Ndate Of Order : 21.05.2025\N\Norder\N\N1. The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 24.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :-\N\N\"1. That Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Is Erroneous In So Far As It Is Based On Incorrect Assumptions, Conjectures & Surmises.\N\N2. That Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Reassessment In The Captioned Matter Is Invalid Because -\N\N2.

For Appellant: Ms. Monalisa Maity, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148(2)Section 292B

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH ‘SMC': NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2297/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrisaktijit Dey, Vice-And Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Classic Mall Development Company Vs. Acit, Limited, Circle – 6(2)(1), C/O Market City Resources Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Ground Floor, R. R. Hosiery Building, Shree Laxmi Woolen Mills Estate, Mahalaxmi - 400011 Pan/Gir No: Aaccc7309K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Vijay Mehta, Ca Respondent By Shri Rajendra Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/05/2025

Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 270A

lack of competitive customers. Such vacant properties were leased out in the subsequent year. The assessee contended that as per the provisions of section 23(1)(c) of the Act, the rent received or receivable during the year may be Nil due to vacancy for the whole year under consideration ... accept the reply of the assessee and held that the case of the assessee is covered by the section 23(1)(a) of the Act and gross annual value has to be on the basis of expected reasonable rate. He held that the facts of the assessee are not covered

PERCIVAL JOSEPH PEREIRA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4662/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(5)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

enhanced to Rs. 500/- per sq.mt. The applicant is also entitled to the benefit of additional component of 12% p. a. under section 23(1)(A) of the Act as well as solatium under section 23(2) and also the interest under section 28 of the Act in addition

PERCIVAL JOSEPH PEREIRA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4661/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(5)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

enhanced to Rs. 500/- per sq.mt. The applicant is also entitled to the benefit of additional component of 12% p. a. under section 23(1)(A) of the Act as well as solatium under section 23(2) and also the interest under section 28 of the Act in addition

RAMESH DUNGARSHI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX, CIRCLE-3, , MUMBAI

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

ITA 1220/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Girish Agarwal, Am Ramesh Dungarshi Shah Deputy Commissioner Of Income 108, Shreedhar Apartment, Maulana Tax, Circle – 3, Kalyan Vs. 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Murbad Azad Road, Dombivali, East, Thane – 421201. Road, Kalyan West – 421301. Pan/Gir No. Aavps0931K (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Devendra Jain, Adv. (Virtually) : Shri. Asif Karmali (Sr. Dr) Respondent By : 14.02.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2015-16. 2. It Is Observed That The Assessee Has Filed This Present Appeal With A Delay Of 47 Days Beyond The Period Of Limitation For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condoning The Delay Along With The Reasons Specified For The Delay. After Hearing The Rival Contentions, We Deem It Fit To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal For The Reason That There Was ‘Sufficient Cause’ & Bonafide Reasons For The Delay. Delay Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri. Devendra Jain, Adv. (Virtually)For Respondent: 14.02.2025
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(4)(b)Section 23(5)Section 250

property’, where the ld. AO has taken the notional rent of unsold shops/flats at Rs. 5,46,000/- as per the provision of Section 23(1)(a) r.w.s. 23(4) of the Act. 4. Briefly stated that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of Civil Construction ... said decision is cited herein under for ease of reference: “9. Furthermore there is no dispute that the effect of the amendment, inserting Section 23(1)(c), would not be to change the incidence of taxability of the properties held as stock in trade. Therefore, this Court's finding that

Showing 1–20 of 98 · Page 1 of 5