Section 24(a) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 24(a) is CIT v. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd. (296 ITR 661), cited in 129 of the 68 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 24(a)

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.

Radha Devi Dalmia v. CIT
125 ITR 134 · 1980 · High Court
55
citing judgments

When determining income from house property under Section 23, the Annual Letable Value (ALV) can be estimated by deeming 7% of the property's value as notional rent, particularly when actual rent or other clear basis for ALV is absent.

CIT v. Motilal Hirabhai Spg. And Wvg. Co. Ltd.
113 ITR 173 · 1978 · High Court
49
citing judgments

The determination of whether share transactions constitute a business activity or an investment depends on the facts of the case. Factors like volume, frequency, and regularity indicate business activity, irrespective of how such transactions are presented in accounts.

CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd.
57 ITR 306 · 1965 · Supreme Court
46
citing judgments

The nature of the activity giving rise to income is fundamental in determining the deductibility of expenses. Interest on loans for acquiring properties held as current assets is a deductible business expenditure if incurred for business purposes.

CIT v. Neha Builders (P.) Ltd.
164 Taxmann 342 · 2007 · High Court
30
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'.

PCIT v. Earth Minerals Co. Ltd.
162 Taxmann.com 272 · 2024 · Supreme Court
13
citing judgments
CIT v. D.N. Dosani
280 ITR 275 · 2006 · High Court
13
citing judgments
Azimganj Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
352 ITR 82 · 2013 · High Court
12
citing judgments
Mangla Homes\n(P) Ltd. v. ITO
360 ITR 187 · 2014 · High Court
10
citing judgments
403 ITR 453 (Kar) (FB) Swire Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. ITO
6 SOT 621 · 2006 · ITAT
5
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 24(a)

SHRI NATARAJAN SOMASUNDARAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-8(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 788/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.788/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Natarajan Somasundaram, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, E-105, Periyar Vegetable Market, Non-Corporate Ward 8(2), Koyambedu, Chennai 600 092. Chennai. [Pan:Aajps6303B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.10.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 443 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, In The Interest Of Justice, We Condone The Delay Of 450 Days By Imposing Cost

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 24Section 32

Showing 120 of 68 · Page 1 of 4