https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64963 The appellant's contention that his share in a jointly owned property, not let out and providing no benefit due to other accommodations, should be considered nil income under section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the appellant derived benefit from the property and was liable for income assessment. Citing a High Court decision, it concluded that since the appellant resided in the same town for employment and could work from his own house, he was not entitled to the exemption. The Tribunal upheld the orders under appeal, dismissing both appeals. en-us Mon, 24 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:47:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64963 The appellant's contention that his share in a jointly owned property, not let out and providing no benefit due to other accommodations, should be considered nil income under section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the appellant derived benefit from the property and was liable for income assessment. Citing a High Court decision, it concluded that since the appellant resided in the same town for employment and could work from his own house, he was not entitled to the exemption. The Tribunal upheld the orders under appeal, dismissing both appeals. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 24 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64963