Which cases are most cited on Section 23(4)?

Smitaben N. Ambani v. CWT (323 ITR 104) — 44 citing judgments; CIT v. Sane & Doshi Enterprises (377 ITR 165) — 38 citing judgments; CIT v. Neha Builders (P.) Ltd. (164 Taxmann 342) — 30 citing judgments; Kumar Properties and Real Estate (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (128 Taxmann.com 364) — 14 citing judgments; CIT v. D.N. Dosani (280 ITR 275) — 13 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 23(4)?

BharatTax indexes 92 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 23(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 23(4) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 23(4) of the Income Tax Act?

Smitaben N. Ambani v. CWT (323 ITR 104) is the decision most relied on for Section 23(4), cited in 44 judgments. The annual value of a self-occupied property, for both wealth tax and income tax purposes, is the reasonable rent expected from a hypothetical tenant. When using municipal ratable value, statutory deductions permissible under municipal law must be added back to arrive at this expected rent.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.21

Section 23(4) 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(4) is Smitaben N. Ambani v. CWT (323 ITR 104), cited in 44 of the 92 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 23(4)

Smitaben N. Ambani v. CWT

323 ITR 104 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

The annual value of a self-occupied property, for both wealth tax and income tax purposes, is the reasonable rent expected from a hypothetical tenant. When using municipal ratable value, statutory deductions permissible under municipal law must be added back to arrive at this expected rent.

CIT v. Sane & Doshi Enterprises

377 ITR 165 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

Rental income from unsold property held by a real-estate developer is assessable under the head 'Income from House Property' and not as 'Business Income'. The treatment in books of account as stock-in-trade does not alter the income's character for tax purposes.

CIT v. Neha Builders (P.) Ltd.

164 Taxmann 342 · 2007 · High Court

citing judgments

When a builder's business involves constructing and selling property, unsold units are considered stock-in-trade and income derived from them is taxable under the head 'Business Income', not 'Income from House Property'.

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. D.N. Dosani

280 ITR 275 · 2006 · High Court

citing judgments

When an assessment is reopened under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's power to make a fresh assessment is confined only to the specific issues directed by the Commissioner for revision. The Assessing Officer cannot consider other items not part of the revisional direction.

Commissioner of Income-tax-I v. Himani M Vakil

10 Taxmann.com 326 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

Rajesh Keshav Pillai v. ITO

44 SOT 617 · 2011 · ITAT

citing judgments

Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, Pune

147 Taxmann.com 333 · 2023 · ITAT

citing judgments

Tivoli Investment& Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

90 ITD 163 · ITAT

citing judgments

PCIT v. Royal Western India Turf\nClub Ltd.

103 Taxmann.com 13 · 2019 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 23(4)

Solutioneyes Consultancy Services and Construction Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -6(5), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 30/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Respondent: Shri M. Jasnani

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)

Pranjal Constructions Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -4, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 50/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Respondent: Shri M. Jasnani

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)

Pranjal Constructions Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1075/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Respondent: Shri M. Jasnani

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)

Jaswantlal J Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 512/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआअसं. 510/मुं/2018 ("न. व. 2009-10) आअसं. 511/मुं/2018 ("न. व.2010-11) आअसं. 512/मुं/2018 ("न. व. 2011-12) Mr Jaswantlal J Shah, 60, Bapu Khote, Cross Lane, Mumbai 400 003 Pan: Aadps 2464H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Aci, Central Circle -32, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/05/2021 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad

Section 127

Jaswantlal J Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 510/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2021AY 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad

Section 127

DCIT Cen Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Vinay Ramakant Sapte, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 3830/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3830, 3831, 4546 & 5594/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2013-14) Dcit Cc-7(1), Room No. Shri Vinay Ramakant 653, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Sapte, बिधम/ 61/62, Tower A, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai400 022 Vs. Kalpataru Residency, Opp. Cine Planet, Sion (E), Mumbai-400 022 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadps6169H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Prashant Kumar Gupta, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Ms. Pooja Shah, Shri Kiran Kapadia, Ars. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 04.03.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman ():

For Appellant: Shri Prashant KumarFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Shah, Shri

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 57

M/S. G G Associates, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 7, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1946/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1946/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. G. G. Associates, San Mahu Complex 5, Bund Garden Road, Opp. Poona Club, Pune-411001. Pan: Aaffg5234G ……….. आवेदक/Applicant बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. ..……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Krishana Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Maruti W. Maddewad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2020 आदेश / Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Appeal), Pune-5 Dated 15.06.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal On Record: “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Honourable Cit (Appeal) - 5, Pune Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Learned Ao Of Rs. 1,26,000/- To The Income Of The Appellant Under The Head “Income From House Property” Being The Annual Letting Value Of The Unsold Units Lying As Stock In Trade Of The Appellant Without Appreciating The Fact That The Appellant Is Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development & The Unsold Flats Are Held As Stock In Trade & Not As Investment. The Appellant Hereby Prays That The Said Addition Of Rs.1,26,000/- May Please Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Krishana GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Maruti W. Maddewad

Section 23Section 23(4)

Haresh Natvarlal Sanghvi, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 4, Thane

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2043/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodharesh Natvarlal Sanghavi Acit, Circle-4, 6Th Floor Nikunj House, Manav Mandir A-Wing, Room No. 2, Ashar I.T Park, Vs. Ambadi Road, Vasai (W), Road No. 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane. Thane(W) – 400 604 Pan –Afcps7828F Acit, Circle-4, 6Th Floor Haresh Natvarlal Sanghavi A-Wing, Room No. 2, Ashar I.T Park, Nikunj House, Manav Mandir Vs. Road No. 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Ambadi Road, Vasai (W), Thane(W) – 400 604 Thane. Pan –Afcps7828F Assessee By: S/Shri Nirav Vora & Ankita Lunia, A.Rs Revenue By: Shri R. Bhoopathi, D.R Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.06.2020

For Appellant: S/shri Nirav Vora & Ankita Lunia, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24Section 32Section 57

M/S. Record Investments and Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 67/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmam/S Record Investments & Vs. I.T.O. Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Ward 3(3)(1), 92, Maker Chambers Vi, 220, Mumbai. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Pan/Gir No.Aaacr 7607 M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 23(2)Section 23(4)

M/S. Goel Raisoni Associates, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 7, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1947/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Krishna GujrathiFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(4)

Kolte Patil I-Ven Townships Pune Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 14, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1238/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)

DCIT Cen Cir 4(1) Cen RG 4, Mumbai vs. Thakur Estate Development P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 4651/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm) Assessment Year-2012-13 Dcit, M/S Thakur Estate Central Circle-4(1), बनाम/ Development Pvt. Ltd. R. No.1916, 19Th Floor, G-1, Thakur House, Vs. Air India Building, Ahsok Nagar, Kandivali(E), Nariman Point, Mumbai-400101 Mumbai-400021 Pan No.Aaack2629J (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 22Section 23(4)Section 234CSection 234DSection 24DSection 271(1)(C)

M/S. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2206/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22Section 23(1)

D.C.I.T. Cir, 8, Nagpur vs. Shri Sanjay Pramod Nashine, Gondia

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 476/NAG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Gitesh Kumar, Senior DRFor Respondent: Shri Mahavir Atal, CA

Section 2(14)(iii)Section 23(4)

Meena Agarwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1698/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri M SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri M C Omi Ningsham

Section 23Section 23(1)Section 23(2)Section 23(4)Section 24

Girdharilal Kalyandas Lulla, Ulhasnagar vs. DCIT Cir 2, Kalyan

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

ITA 1604/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Girdharilal K. Lulla Dcit, Circle-2 C/O Shri Suresh N, Otwani, Adv 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza 109-110, 1St Floor, Tilson Vs. Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada Shopping Centre, Kalyan- Kalyan (W) Ambarnath Road, Ulhasnagar Pan – Aajpl7607D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Suresh N. OtwaniFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen

Section 23(4)Section 24

Sh. Nitin Johari, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 4931/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Chaurasia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR

Section 23Section 23(4)Section 24Section 250

Mukesh Kumar Agarwal, Howrah vs. PCIT-21, Kolkata

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

ITA 857/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.857/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mukesh Kr. Agarwal Vs. P.C.I.T – 21, Kolkata 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, 116/1, Girish Ghosh Road, Bamboo Villa, Kolkata – Liluah, Howrah-711204. 700014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Adapa 7519D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby :Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca Respondent By :Md. Usman, Cit, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21, Kolkata, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, ( Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 03.03.2017. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Passed By Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Lncome Tax - 21, Kolkata Under Section 263 Of The Lncome Tax Act, 1961 Setting Aside The Assessment Order Dated 27Th March, 2015 Passed By The Lncome Tax Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Lncome Tax Act, 1961 Is Without Jurisdiction, Against Law & Facts Of The Case & Therefore Illegal & Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT, DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23(4)(b)Section 24Section 263