Section 23 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.21

Section 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT (373 ITR 673), cited in 381 of the 564 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 23

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.

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.

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.

CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.
341 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
108
citing judgments

The Legislature abolished terminal depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) and the taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2), replacing these provisions with the requirement to reduce sale proceeds of depreciable assets from the block of assets.

CIT v. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd.
352 ITR 583 · 2013 · High Court
80
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A for interest expenditure is not justified if an assessee uses its own interest-free funds for investments generating exempt income, and borrowed funds are entirely utilized for business purposes, without evidence of diversion to earn tax-free income.

CIT v. Moni Kumar Subba
333 ITR 38 · 2011 · High Court
78
citing judgments

Notional interest on an interest-free security deposit cannot be considered as actual or deemed rent under Section 23(1) of the Act. For determining Annual Letting Value (ALV) under Section 23(1)(a), it must be in accordance with municipal laws, considering extraneous circumstances, but not exceeding the standard rent as per rent control legislation.

CIT v. Gurnam Singh
327 ITR 278 · 2010 · High Court
66
citing judgments

For capital gains exemption under Section 54F, the new residential house is not required to be purchased exclusively in the assessee's own name; acquisition in joint names or in the name of a spouse qualifies for the exemption. This principle also applies to Section 54 due to their pari materia nature.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2, Meerut v. Canara Bank Securities Ltd.
114 Taxmann.com 545 · 2020 · Supreme Court
57
citing judgments

Property held as stock-in-trade is not assessable under the head 'Income from House Property' (Section 23). An Assessing Officer's decision not to tax such income, when supported by inquiry, typically cannot be considered erroneous and prejudicial under Section 263.

Judgments on Section 23

Mahanagar Constructions, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 7(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 623/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.623/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahanagar Constructions, S.No.129, H.No.1/2, Hari Ganga, Near Rto Office, Yerwada, Pune-411006. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aajfm8909K बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-7(2), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Vipin Gujrathi Revenue By : Shri N. Ashok Babu सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-5, Pune Dated 12.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Honorable Cit (Appeals) - 5, Pune Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs 11,59,200/- 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 Investments. The Appellant Hereby Prays That The Addition May Please Be Deleted. 2) Without Prejudice To Ground Of Appeal No. 1, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Honorable Cit (Appeals) - 5, Pune

For Appellant: Shri Vipin GujrathiFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Naresh Chander Oberoi, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5565/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1601/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5565/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Acit – 3(2)(2) Shri Naresh Chander Oberoi, Room No. 674, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ 181 B Jolly Maker Tower A, No.1, 18T H Floor, Cuffe Parade Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Colaba, Mumbai – 400005. Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaepo-2381-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Ms. Bharti Singh- Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala - Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 05/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2013-14 & 2014-15 Contest The Order Of Ld. First Appellate Authority On Certain Common Grounds Of Appeal & Therefore, Disposed Of By Way Of This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 23