Section 23(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.21

Section 23(1)(b) falls under section 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 21 (Determination of annual value) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 21 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 23(1)(b) is Commissioner of Income Tax v. J. K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd. (248 ITR 723), cited in 47 of the 51 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

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. 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.

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.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. R.J. Wood
334 ITR 358 · Reported
7
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 23(1)(b)

DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sheba Properties Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals stands dismissed

ITA 699/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 660 To 664/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13) Tata Motors Finance Limited Dy. Cit (Osd), 2(3) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Known As Sheba Properties बनाम/ Limited) M. K. Marg, Mumbai -400 020 10Th Floor, 106A & B, Maker Chambers Vs. Iii, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 699 To 703/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12) Dy. Cit, Circle-2(3)(2), Tata Motors Finance Limited Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sheba बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Properties Limited) 3Rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 18 Mumbai -400 020 Vs. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. R. Vohra & Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin

For Appellant: Shri R. R. Vohra &For Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 23Section 23(1)(a)

Sheba Properties Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals stands dismissed

ITA 660/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 660 To 664/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13) Tata Motors Finance Limited Dy. Cit (Osd), 2(3) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Known As Sheba Properties बनाम/ Limited) M. K. Marg, Mumbai -400 020 10Th Floor, 106A & B, Maker Chambers Vs. Iii, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 699 To 703/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12) Dy. Cit, Circle-2(3)(2), Tata Motors Finance Limited Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sheba बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Properties Limited) 3Rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 18 Mumbai -400 020 Vs. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. R. Vohra & Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin

For Appellant: Shri R. R. Vohra &For Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 23Section 23(1)(a)

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