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

ACIT Cir 12(3), Mumbai vs. Lake View Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4495/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3409/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Lake View Developers Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), बनाम/ 514, Dalamal Towers, Mumbai 211 F.P.J. Marg, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Assessee) : (Revenue) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4495/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), Lake View Developers Mumbai Mumbai-400 021 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Revenue) (Assessee) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4496/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), Omega Associates, बनाम/ Mumbai 514, Dalamal Tower, 211-F.P.J. Marg, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Chetan Karia Revenue By Assessee By : Shri R. P. Rastogi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 03.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 28.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri R. P. Rastogi
Section 143(3)Section 22

Pratik Bharat Shah, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT, Range- 16(3), Mumbai

ITA 3429/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shjoginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3428 /Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Smt. Pratima B. Shah The Acit, Range-16(3) 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 194, Gaiwadi Compound, Girgaum Vs. Road,Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan:Aafps 3008 R आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./ 3429/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shri Pratik Bharat Shah The Acit, Range-16(3) 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 194, Gaiwadi Compound, Girgaum Vs. Road,Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan:Aagps 1424 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ganesh Bare-Dr Assessee By: S/Shri Vijay Mehta &Anuj Kishnadwala-Ar’S सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिन यम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिन अिधिनयम अिधिन यम यम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त 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, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 14.2.14,Of The Cit(A)-27,Mumbai The Assessees Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals.As The Same Issue-Levy Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C)(1)(C) Of The Act-Is Involved In Both The Cases & The Assessees Are Members Of The Same Family,So,We Are Adjudicating Both The Appeals By A Single Order.

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta &Anuj Kishnadwala-AR’sFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Pratima B. Shah, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT, Range- 16(3), Mumbai

ITA 3428/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shjoginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3428 /Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Smt. Pratima B. Shah The Acit, Range-16(3) 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 194, Gaiwadi Compound, Girgaum Vs. Road,Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan:Aafps 3008 R आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./ 3429/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shri Pratik Bharat Shah The Acit, Range-16(3) 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 194, Gaiwadi Compound, Girgaum Vs. Road,Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan:Aagps 1424 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ganesh Bare-Dr Assessee By: S/Shri Vijay Mehta &Anuj Kishnadwala-Ar’S सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिन यम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिन अिधिनयम अिधिन यम यम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त 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, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 14.2.14,Of The Cit(A)-27,Mumbai The Assessees Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals.As The Same Issue-Levy Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C)(1)(C) Of The Act-Is Involved In Both The Cases & The Assessees Are Members Of The Same Family,So,We Are Adjudicating Both The Appeals By A Single Order.

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta &Anuj Kishnadwala-AR’sFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Manish G. Dalamal, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7414/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.7414/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Manish G Dalamal, बनधम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8, 2Nd Floor, Shiv Sadan, Tax 12(3), Vs. 1St Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, 131, Netaji Subhash Road, Marine Drive, M K Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aahpd4805H अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Ms.Apurva R Shah प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shrimati Bharti Singh सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.5.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement :8.6.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.9.2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 23, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called As The Cit(A) For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Though There Are Four Grounds Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal But There Are Only Two Effective Grounds Viz Ground No.1 Relates Brokerage, Legal Expenses & Insurance Which Were Disallowed While Computing Annual Value Of Property Which Has Been Let Out & The Second Ground Is In Respect Of 2 7414/Mum/2013

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 23Section 24