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)

Highend Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all these appeals are accordingly allowed in part

ITA 2287/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent / Ita Nos. / A.Y. Deputy Commissioner 2284/Hyd/2018 2011-12 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Income Tax Officer, 2285/Hyd/2018 2012-13 Ward-2(3), M/S. Highend Hyderabad Properties Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Hyderabad Commissioner Of [Pan: Aabch7130G] 2286/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Deputy Commissioner 2287/Hyd/2018 2014-15 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/02/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Aggrieved By The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Guntur & Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of M/S. Highend Properties Pvt. Ltd., (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Assessees Preferred These

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Highend Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all these appeals are accordingly allowed in part

ITA 2286/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent / Ita Nos. / A.Y. Deputy Commissioner 2284/Hyd/2018 2011-12 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Income Tax Officer, 2285/Hyd/2018 2012-13 Ward-2(3), M/S. Highend Hyderabad Properties Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Hyderabad Commissioner Of [Pan: Aabch7130G] 2286/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Deputy Commissioner 2287/Hyd/2018 2014-15 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/02/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Aggrieved By The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Guntur & Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of M/S. Highend Properties Pvt. Ltd., (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Assessees Preferred These

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Highend Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all these appeals are accordingly allowed in part

ITA 2285/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent / Ita Nos. / A.Y. Deputy Commissioner 2284/Hyd/2018 2011-12 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Income Tax Officer, 2285/Hyd/2018 2012-13 Ward-2(3), M/S. Highend Hyderabad Properties Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Hyderabad Commissioner Of [Pan: Aabch7130G] 2286/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Deputy Commissioner 2287/Hyd/2018 2014-15 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/02/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Aggrieved By The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Guntur & Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of M/S. Highend Properties Pvt. Ltd., (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Assessees Preferred These

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Highend Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all these appeals are accordingly allowed in part

ITA 2284/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent / Ita Nos. / A.Y. Deputy Commissioner 2284/Hyd/2018 2011-12 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Income Tax Officer, 2285/Hyd/2018 2012-13 Ward-2(3), M/S. Highend Hyderabad Properties Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Hyderabad Commissioner Of [Pan: Aabch7130G] 2286/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Deputy Commissioner 2287/Hyd/2018 2014-15 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/02/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Aggrieved By The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Guntur & Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of M/S. Highend Properties Pvt. Ltd., (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Assessees Preferred These

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Shyam Narayan Trades Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3187/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 3187 & 2740/Mum/2022 (A.Y.2011-12) Shyam Narayan Trades Vs. Income Tax Officer-4(3)(1) Private Limited Room No. 637, 6 Th Floor, Shop No.3, Building No. Aaykar Bhavan, 136, Kalbadevi Road, M.K.Road, Vithalwadi, Kalbadevi, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aakcs2903B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Bhargavi Raval Respondent By : Bharat Andhale Date Of Hearing 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Different Orders Of Nafc, Delhi. On The Basis Of Assessment Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) & 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Act. “1.01 The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Appellant Has Asked For An Adjournment As The Documents Was To Be Gathered From Multiple Sources & Required Some Time To Compile The Said Documents Before Submission To The Learned Cit(A) The Learned Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Appellant Company Without Considering The Details Available On Record With Cit(A) & The Department & Without Giving Any Opportunity For Video Conference To The Appellant Company. 1.02 The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Accepted The Request Of The Appellant Company & Should Have Granted The Necessary Adjournment For Submission

For Appellant: Bhargavi RavalFor Respondent: Bharat Andhale
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 250

Shyam Narayan Trades Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2740/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 3187 & 2740/Mum/2022 (A.Y.2011-12) Shyam Narayan Trades Vs. Income Tax Officer-4(3)(1) Private Limited Room No. 637, 6 Th Floor, Shop No.3, Building No. Aaykar Bhavan, 136, Kalbadevi Road, M.K.Road, Vithalwadi, Kalbadevi, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aakcs2903B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Bhargavi Raval Respondent By : Bharat Andhale Date Of Hearing 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Different Orders Of Nafc, Delhi. On The Basis Of Assessment Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) & 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Act. “1.01 The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Appellant Has Asked For An Adjournment As The Documents Was To Be Gathered From Multiple Sources & Required Some Time To Compile The Said Documents Before Submission To The Learned Cit(A) The Learned Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Appellant Company Without Considering The Details Available On Record With Cit(A) & The Department & Without Giving Any Opportunity For Video Conference To The Appellant Company. 1.02 The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Accepted The Request Of The Appellant Company & Should Have Granted The Necessary Adjournment For Submission

For Appellant: Bhargavi RavalFor Respondent: Bharat Andhale
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 250