Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Poonam Kumari vs Income-Tax Officer on 29 March, 1996

Mohini Mohan Dutta , Mumbai vs Assessee on 11 August, 2011

4. We have perused the records and considered the rival contentions carefully. The dispute is regarding the determination of annual value of the property owned by the assessee which remained 3 ITA No.4902/M/10 A.Y:06-07 vacant throughout the year. The annual value of a property is required to be determined under the provisions of section 23(1) and as per clause (a) of section 23(1) the annual value is the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year and as per clause (b), in case the property or any part of the property is let and actual rent received or receivable is in excess of the sum referred to under clause(a), then the sum received or receivable would be the annual value. Further, clause (c) of section 23(1) provides that where the property or part of the property is let and was vacant during the whole or any part of the previous year and owing to such vacancy, the actual rent received or receivable is less than the sum referred to in clause (a), then amount so received or receivable will be the annual value. In the present case there is no dispute that the property was earlier let and remained vacant throughout the year and, therefore, annual value has to be determined under the provisions of section 23(1)(c). Since rent received or receivable is nil because property was vacant throughout the year, the annual value in such a case has to be taken as nil. This view is supported by the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in case of Smt. Poonam Sawhney vs. ITO (supra) in which it has been held that in case property is vacant during the whole or part of the year the annual value has to be determined under the provisions of section 23(1)(c).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1