Section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.22

Section 24(b) falls under section 24 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 22 (Deductions from income from house property) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 22 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 24(b) is CIT v. Mithilesh Kumari (92 ITR 9), cited in 54 of the 545 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 24(b)

CIT v. Mithilesh Kumari
92 ITR 9 · 1973 · High Court
54
citing judgments

Interest on borrowed capital used to acquire an asset, paid year after year until the date of sale, must be capitalized and included in the cost of acquisition for computing capital gains.

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. Mythreyi Pai
152 ITR 247 · 1985 · High Court
44
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred towards the purchase of shares is a capital expenditure and therefore, interest expenditure incurred on such purchases is not eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.

CIT v. Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd.
311 ITR 253 · 2009 · High Court
29
citing judgments

Expenses incurred prior to business commencement but after business setup are deductible as revenue expenses, as the setting up and commencement dates of a business are not necessarily the same.

UOI v. Wood Papers Ltd.
4 SCC 256 · 1990 · Reported
29
citing judgments

In the interpretation of taxing statutes, exemption provisions are to be construed strictly, but once eligibility criteria are met, the exemption notification should be liberally construed to give it full play.

CIT v. Jaypee DSC Ventures Ltd.
335 ITR 132 · 2011 · High Court
28
citing judgments

Interest income generated from fixed deposits, if purchased due to business exigencies or for the purpose of carrying on business activities, is to be treated as business income and not income from other sources.

CIT v. Surinder Pal Anand, Surinder Pal Anand
242 CTR 61 · 2011 · High Court
20
citing judgments

When an assessee opts for the presumptive taxation scheme under Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, offering income at a specified percentage of gross receipts, they are exempt from maintaining books of account and are not obligated to explain individual entries of cash deposits unless such entries lack nexus with the gross receipts.

CIT v. Taj International Jewellers
20 Taxmann.com 1 · 2012 · High Court
17
citing judgments

Interest paid on borrowed funds used to purchase FDRs is deductible as an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for earning taxable interest income, establishing a clear nexus between borrowing and earning interest.

CIT v. K. Raja Gopala Rao
252 ITR 459 · 2001 · High Court
15
citing judgments

Mortgage expenses and interest payable on a mortgage used as part of the purchase consideration are included in the cost of acquisition for computing capital gains on the transfer of property.

CIT v. Runwal Developers (P) Ltd.
15 Taxmann.com 196 · 2011 · High Court
14
citing judgments

Maintenance charges received for the promotion and upkeep of a mall are business receipts assessable under the head 'Income from business'. This applies even if part of the premises is sold on an outright sale basis.

Judgments on Section 24(b)

Sweta Somani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 44(2), Kolkata

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1656/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Sweta Somani Vs. Ito, Ward-44(2), Kolkata 2, Munshi Sadruddin Lane, 2Nd Floor, Barabazar, West Bengal-700007 [Pan: Axdps0596F] Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Respondent By : Shri Amit Kumar Barua, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2026 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Gurugram [“The Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short], Dated 18.03.2026 With Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1087530491(1), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”, For Short) For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 19.12.2017 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. For That They Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer In Adding Back Rs.27,42,221/- U/S 56(2)(B)(Vii) When He Should Have Considered The Fair Market Value Of The Property Purchased On The Date Of Agreement Since Part Consideration Was Paid Through Banking Channels. 2. For That They Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer In Adding Back Rs.27,42,221/- U/S 56(2)(B)(Vii) When Sweta Somani; A.Y.: 2015-16 He Should Have Referred The Valuation Of Fair Market Value Of The Property Purchased On The Date Of Agreement To The Dvo. 3. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer In Adding Back Rs.2,00,000/- Claimed As Interest Paid On Loan Taken For House Property Without Mentioning Any Reason Whatsoever When Evidence Of Payment Was Duly Filed.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Barua, DR
Section 143(2)Section 24Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(b)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

Tushar Harishkumar Gangwani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 188/SRT/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Sept 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyanitushar Harishkumar Gangwani, Income Tax Officer, 7-A, Mount Blank Appt., Ward 2(3)(4), Near Rajhans Cinema, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs. Piplod, Near Majura Gate, Surat Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat Pan: Aoepg7137C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2026 O R D E R Per : Suchitra Kamble, J M: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short “Cit(A)”] Dated 19.12.2025 For The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Id. Assessing Officer In Making An Addition Of Rs. 4,20,000/- As Income From House Property Under The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Despite The Fact That The Said Property Is Not Owned By Assessee. 2. It Is Therefore Prayed That Above Addition Made By Assessing Officer & Confirmed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, May Please Be Deleted. Tushar Harishkumar Gangwani

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263