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)

Mangesh Ramesh Annachhatre, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -1 (1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITSSA 108/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / It(Ss)A No.108/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Mangesh Ramesh Annachhatre, The Dcit, Central Circle- 1206/13/B, Sarswati Sadan, V 1(1), Pune. Muncipal Colony, J.M.Road, S Pune – 411004. Pan: Aawpa 8999 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shir Sandeep J.Sathe – Ar Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/01/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-11,Pune Dated 17.05.2019 Emanating From Assessment Order Of Assessing Officer Dated 18.12.2018 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 153Aof The I.T.Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Learned Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing Part Amount Of Rs.43,480/- Of Housing Loan Interest Paid(Out Of Total Interest Paid Rs.2,43,480/-) For House Property At Jangli Maharaj Road, In Spite Of The Facts That Assessee Is Staying At This Place & Part Of The House Was Rented & Getting Rent For The Same Property. Under This Circumstances, Full Interest Claimed Be Allowed As Deduction.

Section 143(3)Section 24

Syed Mohammed Rizwan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(8), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 696/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Syed Mohammed Rizwan Vs The Income Tax Officer-2(2)(8) No. 193, 1St Main Road Bmtc Depot Sheshadripuram Koramangala Bangalore 560020 Bengaluru 560095 Pan – Afvpr3337R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-11, Bangalore Dated 22.07.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. General Ground 1.1 The Order Passed By The Cit(A) 11, Bangalore Is Bad In Law & 'Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Assessment Order Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice 2.1 The Learned Ao Erred In Making The Addition Under Section 68 Amounting To Rs. 3,99,46,180, Rs. 33,69,742 & .The Disallowance Of Interest Under Section 24(B) Amounting To Rs. 2,00,000 In An Undue, Haste & Mechanical Manner Without Properly Considering The Details & Documents Filed During The Assessment. 2.2 The Learned Ao Erred In Passing The Assessment Order & Erred In Making The Impugned Additions Without Issuing Any Show Cause Notice

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 24Section 68

Michelle Y. Poonawalla, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 75/PUN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.75/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Michelle Yohan Poonawalla, The Dy.Cit, Circle-7, Pune. 16/B-1, Sarosh Bhavan, 2Nd Vs Floor, Dr.Ambedkar Road, . Opp.Niv, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aanpv 5236 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Bharat Patel – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walime & Shir Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune Dated 31.12.2019For The A.Y.2014-15.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Following Grounds Are Taken Without Prejudice To Each Other - On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, 1] The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That - A. In Order To Arrive At Actual Rent As Defined U/Sec.23(1)(D) In Case Of Let Out Property, Expenditure Incurred For Earning Such Rent Shall Be Deducted At Threshold Level Itself. B. Principles Of Real Income Are Ignored While Denying Deduction Of Interest Paid By Appellant For Acquiring Possession Of Property (I.E. Flat No.11, Breach Candy Garden, Mumbai) From Statutory Tenant. 2] The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That Payment Of

Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)(d)Section 24Section 57