<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Appeal allowed in part, grants s.23(1)(c) relief for five flats; office treated as house property, recomputation directed</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94302</link>
    <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal in part. The Tribunal held that the AO&#039;s and CIT(A)&#039;s addition of deemed rent for five Mumbai flats was unsustainable because the assessee had bona fide intention to let and took efforts to rent the properties, thus attracting s.23(1)(c) relief; Ground No.1 allowed. Ground No.2 was dismissed: the office at Hariom Chambers was properly held chargeable to tax under Income from House Property because the assessee did not carry on a business/profession chargeable to tax under profits and gains. Alternatively, Ground No.3 was allowed: the assessee may designate Hariom Chambers as self-occupied and treat Ruby Villa as deemed let, and the AO is directed to recompute income from house property accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:41 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=865627" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal allowed in part, grants s.23(1)(c) relief for five flats; office treated as house property, recomputation directed</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94302</link>
      <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal in part. The Tribunal held that the AO&#039;s and CIT(A)&#039;s addition of deemed rent for five Mumbai flats was unsustainable because the assessee had bona fide intention to let and took efforts to rent the properties, thus attracting s.23(1)(c) relief; Ground No.1 allowed. Ground No.2 was dismissed: the office at Hariom Chambers was properly held chargeable to tax under Income from House Property because the assessee did not carry on a business/profession chargeable to tax under profits and gains. Alternatively, Ground No.3 was allowed: the assessee may designate Hariom Chambers as self-occupied and treat Ruby Villa as deemed let, and the AO is directed to recompute income from house property accordingly.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:41 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94302</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>