Section 22 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.20

Section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 20 (Income from house property) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 20 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 22 is Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT (373 ITR 673), cited in 381 of the 644 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 22

Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT
373 ITR 673 · 2015 · Supreme Court
381
citing judgments

Income from immovable property, such as unsold flats or shops, held by an assessee as stock-in-trade in their business of acquiring and holding properties is taxable as 'business income' and not 'income from house property'. Consequently, notional annual letting value under Section 23 cannot be attributed to such stock-in-trade.

CIT v. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd.
354 ITR 180 · 2013 · High Court
208
citing judgments

Annual Letting Value (ALV) of unsold stock-in-trade flats/shops held by a real estate developer can be assessed under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as income from house property. This approach was followed by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on this decision.

Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT
263 ITR 143 · 2003 · Supreme Court
181
citing judgments

Income derived from letting out property along with incidental use of furniture, fixtures, and common facilities is assessable as 'income from house property' and not 'business income' when the prime object is merely to let out and not to exploit the property as a business asset.

Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT
266 ITR 99 · 2004 · Supreme Court
181
citing judgments

The Revenue cannot take a conflicting stand from what it had earlier accepted in a previous assessment year without compelling justification. This principle of consistency applies to various issues, including the treatment of customs duty in closing inventory.

Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT
244 ITR 734 · 2000 · High Court
168
citing judgments

The Revenue is bound by the rule of consistency and cannot adopt a divergent position in a subsequent assessment year unless there is a change in facts or law.

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.

Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT
51 ITR 353 · 1964 · Supreme Court
148
citing judgments

Income derived from letting out property is classified as business income only if the letting activity constitutes a business from a businessman's perspective, rather than mere exploitation of property by an owner. The company's object clause is not the sole determinative factor in this assessment.

East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT
42 ITR 49 · 1961 · Supreme Court
147
citing judgments

Rental income from immovable property owned by an assessee must be assessed under the head 'Income from House Property' (Section 22), even if the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate or property development and leasing. This emphasizes the mandatory classification of income under its specific statutory head.

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.

Judgments on Section 22

DCIT 29(1), Mumbai vs. Dinesh M Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2562/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Cn Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja: (A.Y : 2010-11) Dcit 29(1) Vs. Dinesh M Shah R.No.108, 1St Floor, C-10 Bldg., Prop. M/S Mehula Pratyakshakar Bhavan Enterprises Bandra Kurla Complex 104, Arnath Sravodya Nagar Bandra (E) Jain Mandir, Mulund (W) Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 080 Pan : Aagps5149G (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से Revenue By : Mrs Beena Santosh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2017 घोषणा की तारीख Date Of Pronouncement : 22/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-40, Mumbai Dated 30.03.2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Revenue In Its Appeal Has Raised The Following Grounds : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Salary Of Rs.10,11,674/- Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Has Not Proved As To How The Excess Salary Expenditure Laid For Planning Of Expansion Of The Business & As To How The Same Did

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Mrs Beena Santosh
Section 22

DCIT 1(2), Mumbai vs. Nautilus Trading & Leasing P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5778/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./5778/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit – 1(2) M/S. Nautilus Trading & Leasing Limited Room No.535, 5Th Floor 13, Meera Baug, Santacruz (W) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 054. Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaccn 3989 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: None सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:06/01/2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग" धारा अ"तग" अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग" आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 03/05/2013 Of The Cit(A)-7,Mumbai, The Assessing Officer(Ao) Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Deriving Income From House Property, Filed Its Return Of Income On 18/10/2007, Declaring Loss Of Rs. 1.05 Crores.The Ao Completed The Assessment, Under Section 143 (3) Of The Act, On 4/12/2009, Determining Its Income At Rs.(-) 9.46 Lakhs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai-DR
Section 143Section 22Section 254(1)