Section 24 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.22

Section 24 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT (373 ITR 673), cited in 381 of the 701 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 24

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.

ICDS Ltd. v. CIT
350 ITR 527 · 2013 · Supreme Court
280
citing judgments

An assessee engaged in the business of hire purchase or leasing, being the lessor, is entitled to claim depreciation on assets leased out, even if the assets are registered in the name of the lessee and used by the lessee.

CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd.
53 ITR 140 · 1964 · Supreme Court
201
citing judgments

The expression "for the purpose of business" is wider in scope than "for the purpose of earning profits" and encompasses expenditures made for commercial expediency, business preservation, administration, and modernization.

Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT
263 ITR 143 · 2003 · Supreme Court
181
citing judgments

Income derived from letting out property along with incidental use of furniture, fixtures, and common facilities is assessable as 'income from house property' and not 'business income' when the prime object is merely to let out and not to exploit the property as a business asset.

Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT
51 ITR 353 · 1964 · Supreme Court
148
citing judgments

Income derived from letting out property is classified as business income only if the letting activity constitutes a business from a businessman's perspective, rather than mere exploitation of property by an owner. The company's object clause is not the sole determinative factor in this assessment.

East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT
42 ITR 49 · 1961 · Supreme Court
147
citing judgments

Rental income from immovable property owned by an assessee must be assessed under the head 'Income from House Property' (Section 22), even if the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate or property development and leasing. This emphasizes the mandatory classification of income under its specific statutory head.

S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta
83 ITR 700 · 1972 · Supreme Court
126
citing judgments

Income from sources not falling under any other head of income under Section 14 of the Income Tax Act is taxed under the residuary head 'income from other sources'. If income cannot be taxed under Section 45 (capital gains), it cannot be taxed at all.

Raj Dadarkar & Associates v. ACIT
394 ITR 592 · 2017 · Supreme Court
107
citing judgments

The object clause in a partnership deed is not determinative of the head under which rental income is to be assessed; income from letting out shops and stalls developed by the assessee may still be classified as 'Income from House Property' rather than 'Profits and Gains of Business'.

Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT
386 ITR 500 · 2016 · Supreme Court
89
citing judgments

If an assessee company's main business object is to acquire and rent out properties, the rental income derived is taxable as 'Profits and gains of business or profession', rather than 'Income from house property', as the nature of the activity constitutes a business.

Universal Plast Ltd. v. CIT
237 ITR 454 · 1999 · Supreme Court
69
citing judgments

Income received by an assessee from leasing or letting out assets, whether categorized as lease amount, rent, or license fee, is a mixed question of law and fact to determine if it falls under 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. No precise test exists, and the determination must consider the perspective of a businessman, the specific facts, and the true interpretation of the letting agreement.

Judgments on Section 24

Shri. Sanjay Chamanlal Munshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 5 (1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-

ITA 6966/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjay Chamanlal Munshi, The Ito 5(1)(3), 3Rd Floor, Sunama House, 140, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, August Kranti Marg, Churchgate, Kemps Corner, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400026 Pan: Aanpm5867A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Sawna (Ar) Revenue By : Shri T.S. Khalsa (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2020 O R D E R Per Bench The Assessee Has Filed The Captioned Appeals Against The Common Order Dated 30.09.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10 (For Short ‘The Cit(A), Mumbai, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Vide The Said Order, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143 (3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2012-13 & 2014-15 & Partly Allowed The Appeal Filed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143 (3) R.Ws. 147 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. Since, These Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee For The Different Assessment The Same Were Clubbed & Heard Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common & Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Impugned Order Passed By The Ld. Cit (A) For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On The Following Effective Grounds:-

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sawna (AR)For Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa (DR)
Section 143Section 24

Sh. Manish Kumar, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 3485/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manish Kumar, Vs Ito, C/O M/S Malik & Co. (Adv), Ward-1(1), 305/7, Thapar Nagar, Muzaffarnagar. Meerut City, Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Aqzpk8150C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Malik, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20Th March, 2017 Of The Cit(A), Muzaffarnagar, Relating To The A.Y. 2010-11. 2. In Ground No.1, The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Cit(A) In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.2,67,190/- On Account Of Notional Interest On Interest Free Advances Given. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Trading Of Medicines In Wholesale Under The Name & Style Of The Proprietorship Concern M/S Manish Kumar & Co. He Filed His Return Of Income On 20Th September, 2010, Declaring The Total Income At Rs.4,34,502/-. The Ao, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Noted That The Assessee Has Given Advances Of Rs.49,50,000/- To Ten Different Persons & No Interest Has Been Received From The Above Persons. However, The Assessee Has Paid Bank Interest. The Ao, Therefore, Applying The Interest Rate Of 15% Per Annum Against Such Interest Free Advances, Made An Addition Of Rs.7,42,500/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee Being Deemed Interest On Such Advances. Similarly, The Assessee Had Shown Advance Of Rs.59,95,000/- To M/S R.S. Distributors, Ghaziabad Free Of Interest. The Ao, Therefore, Made Addition Of Rs.4,81,250/- Being Deemed Interest @ 15% On Such Interest Free Advances.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR