Which cases are most cited on Section 23(1)?

Central India Electric Supply Co. v. CIT* (232 ITR 2) — 16 citing judgments; Kumar Properties and Real Estate (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (128 Taxmann.com 364) — 14 citing judgments; CIT v. Smt. Lila Ghosh (205 ITR 9) — 12 citing judgments; Bipin Vadilal Family Trust v. CIT (208 ITR 1005) — 12 citing judgments; Pegasus Properties (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (135 Taxmann.com 294) — 9 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 23(1)?

BharatTax indexes 114 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 23(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 23(1) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 23(1) of the Income Tax Act?

Central India Electric Supply Co. v. CIT* (232 ITR 2) is the decision most relied on for Section 23(1), cited in 16 judgments. Mesne profits decreed by a court are taxable income in the hands of the decree holder in the relevant assessment year they are charged to income-tax.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.21

Section 23(1) 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) is Central India Electric Supply Co. v. CIT* (232 ITR 2), cited in 16 of the 114 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 23(1)

Central India Electric Supply Co. v. CIT*

232 ITR 2 · 1998 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Mesne profits decreed by a court are taxable income in the hands of the decree holder in the relevant assessment year they are charged to income-tax.

Kumar Properties and Real Estate (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

128 Taxmann.com 364 · 2021 · ITAT

citing judgments

No disallowance can be made under section 14A if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year.

CIT v. Smt. Lila Ghosh

205 ITR 9 · High Court

citing judgments

Mesne profits received by an assessee for unauthorized occupation of property constitute a capital receipt and are not chargeable to income tax. This receipt is characterized as damages for dispossession or loss of a right to use the property.

Bipin Vadilal Family Trust v. CIT

208 ITR 1005 · 1994 · High Court

citing judgments

Unsold properties can be assessed for deemed rental income under Section 23(1)(a) based on a reasonable letting value, often calculated as a percentage of the property's cost or value.

Pegasus Properties (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

135 Taxmann.com 294 · 2022 · ITAT

citing judgments

CIT v. Wackhardt International Ltd.

314 ITR 11 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

Sachin R. Tendulkar v. DCIT

96 Taxmann.com 253 · 2018 · Reported

citing judgments

CIT v. Mrs. Annamma Alexander

191 ITR 551 · High Court

citing judgments

Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, Pune

147 Taxmann.com 333 · 2023 · ITAT

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 23(1)

Idhayam Infraheights Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle, Faridabad

The appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 6779/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 6778/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Ita No. 6779/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2021-22 Idhayam Infraheights Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Shop No. 2, Second Floor, Lajpat Central Circle, Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Faridabad, Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd9391G Assessee By: Sh. Nikhil Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.12.2025 Order These Assessee’S Twin Appeals In Ita Nos. 6778 & 6779/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2021-22, Arise Against The Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon’S In Case Nos. 10948/2019-20 & 10308/2020-21 Both Dated 11.08.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 23(1)Section 24Section 28

Idhayam Infraheights Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Cirlce, Faridabad

The appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 6778/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 23(1)Section 24Section 28

Azim Hasham Premji, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1323/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huligal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Thejaswi G V, JCIT-DR

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(c)Section 250

Azim Hasham Premji, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1322/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huligal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Thejaswi G V, JCIT-DR

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(c)Section 250

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)

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

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

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)

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

Vile Parle Prarthana Co-Op.Hsg. Soc.Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -25(3), Mumbai

ITA 1411/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

Vile Parle Prarthana Co-Op.Hsg. Soc.Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -25(3), Mumbai

ITA 1409/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

Kusumlata Garg, Indore vs. DCIT ACIT 3 (1) Indore, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 298/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

DCIT, Muzaffarnagar vs. Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad Through L/H Shri Dilnawaz & Mrs. Mehrunissa, Muzaffarnagar

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA 3555/Del/2017 is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue in ITA 3754/Del/2017 is also partly allowed

ITA 3754/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14 Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Through Legal Heir Shri Dilnawaz Income Tax, Circle-1, (Son) & Mrs. Mehrunissa (Spouse) Muzaffarnagar. 800/1, Yogendrapuri, Muzaffarnagar Pan- Ahrpd 5860 D Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Vs Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad, Commissioner Of Through Legal Heir Shri Dilnawaz (Son) Income Tax, Circle-1 & Mrs. Mehrunissa (Spouse) Muzaffarnagar. 800/1, Yogendrapuri, Muzaffarnagar Pan- Ahrpd 5860 D Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)

Shri Ravi Kumar Shyam Sunder Rai, Kalyan vs. DCIT, CIT-42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3736/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair – (Sr. DR)

Section 44ASection 68

Arunkumar Jayantilal Muchhala, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3648/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Bleand

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)

Chhotelal Gangaprasad Dubey, Mumbai vs. ACIT-24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3728/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhchhotelal Gangaprasad Vs. Acit 24(1) Dubey, 1005, Blue 6Th Floor, Piramal Mountain, Shastri Nagar, Chambers, Lalgaug, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400013 Mumbai – 400 058 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaepd9496P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Aditya Maheshwari Respondent By : S. Arunkumar Date Of Hearing 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 30.08.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Erred In Upholding Action Of Income Tax Officer Of Adopting Deemed Rent Of Let Out Property At Rs.10,23,000 Without Considering The Facts That Property Was Not Lying Vacant. Due To Acute Financial Problem At The End Of Tenant, Rent Could Not Be Recovered. More Over The Tenant Has Also Not Claimed Any Expenses On Account Of Rent For The Same. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Erred In Upholding Actions Of Income Tax Officer Without Considering Written Submissions & Details Filed By The Ar Of Assessee On 24Th November 2022.” 2. Fact In Brief Is That Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,50,770/- Was Filed On 27.10.2018. The Revised Return Of Income

For Appellant: Aditya MaheshwariFor Respondent: S. Arunkumar

Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 23(4)Section 23(4)(C)