How to calculate Gross Annual Value under the head “Income from House Property”

By | March 1, 2014

Calculation of Gross Annual Value under Income Tax for Calculating Income from House Property. Section 23 of the Income tax deals with Gross Annual Rent calculation but in simple terms it may be termed as total annual rent which owner expect from that property. But problem may arise in case of high notional interest on interest-free security deposit or taxability in case landlord wants to give property on rent but there was no suitable tenant. Notional interest on refundable interest free deposit received by the assessee in respect of a shop let out on rent was neither taxable as business profit under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) nor income from house property under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act. In second case Annual Value will be Zero.

Section 23(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 says that “Gross Annual Value” includes:

(a) The sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year.

(b) Where the property or any part of the property is let and the actual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is in excess of the sum referred to in clause (a), the amount so received or receivable.

(c) Where the property or any 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 by the owner in respect thereof is less than the sum referred to in clause (a), the amount so received or receivable.

In short we can say that “Gross Annual Value” includes any amount for which the property might reasonably be expected to let or if the property or any part of the property is let either for whole year or part of year than actual amount received.

S. 23(1)(a) & 23(1)(b) of IT Act, 1961—Income from house property—The question arose in the facts and circumstances “whether notional interest on interest-free security deposits is to be taken into consideration to arrive at the annual value of the property in all cases or in only some glaring cases where the security deposit is completely disproportionate to the actual  contractual rent or whether even a huge interest-free security deposit can be totally ignored while determining the  fair rent of the property has been referred to the Full Bench for adjudication—CIT vs. Moni Kumar Subba (2010) 235 CTR 132 (Delhi)

S. 23(1)(b) & 263 of IT Act, 1961—Revision—Since no material is there for CIT to hold the order of Assessing Officer to be erroneous and while dealing with the aspect of profits, the CIT, has not been able to show a single error in the said order, the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be said to be erroneous only on account of the Assessing Officer did not call for division wise P&L a/cs and balance sheets of the assessee company and probe the marginal decline in profits in the relevant year. Hence, in such circumstances CIT has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Assessing Officer under s. 263 of the Act—SICAL Logistics Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT. [2010] 128 TTJ 361 (TM)(CHENNAI)

S. 23(1)(a) of IT Act, 1961—Income from house property—Operative words in s. 23(1)(a) of the Act are “the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year.” These words provide a specific direction to the revenue for determining the fair rent. The Assessing Officer, having regard to the aforesaid provision is expected to make an inquiry as to what would be the possible rent that property might fetch. Thus, if the Assessing Officer finds that the actual rent received is less than the  fair/market rent  because of the reason that the assessee has received abnormally high interest-free security deposit and because of that reason, the actual rent received is less than the rent which the property might fetch, he can undertake necessary exercise in that behalf. However, by no stretch of imagination, the notional interest on the interest free security can be taken as determinative to arrive at a fair rent. Provisions of s. 23(1) (a) do not mandate this—CIT vs. Moni Kumar Subba (2011) 240 CTR 97 (Delhi)

Income-tax Act, 1961, sections 23(1)(c)—Income from house property—Common issue in the appeals was as to what would be the annual letting value (ALV) of a property when remained vacant for the whole year. While allowing the appeals, the ITAT, Mumbai Branch held that:—”From correspondence, it is noticed that the assessee has approached various property consultants to let out its properties and during the year, it could not get a suitable tenant. From a careful perusal of these documents, it has become evident that during the whole year, the assessee made its continuous efforts to let out the properties and under these circumstances, this property can be called to be let out property in terms of our observations in the foregoing paragraphs. Since the property has been held to be let out property, its annual letting value can only be worked out as per clause (c) of section 23(1) of the Income-tax Act and according to this clause, the rent received or receivable during the year is nil and as such the same be taken as the annual value of the property in order to compute the income from house property. We, therefore, order accordingly.” Premsudha Exports P. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITAT, Mum)…..99

Income Tax Act, 1961, sections 23(1)(a), 28(iv) and 260A—Income from house property—The question sought to be urged by the Revenue in both appeals was as follows:—”Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the notional interest on refundable interest free deposit received by the assessee in respect of a shop let out on rent was neither taxable as business profit under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) nor income from house property under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act?” While dismissing the appeals, the High Court of Delhi held that—”(i) A plain reading of the provisions indicates that the question of any notional interest on an interest free deposit being added to the income of an assessee on the basis that it may have been earned by the Assessee if placed as a fixed deposit, does not arise. Section 28(iv) is concerned with business income and is distinct and different from income from house property. (ii) It must be remembered that in a taxing statute it would be unsafe for the Court to go beyond the letter of the law and try to read into the provision more than what is already provided for. The attempt by learned counsel for the Revenue to draw an analogy from the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 is also to no avail. It is an admitted position that there is a specific provision in the Wealth Tax Act which provides for considering of a notional interest whereas Section 23(1)(a) contains no such specific provision.” CIT vs. Asian Hotels Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 490 (DEL.)

S. 23(1)(vii) of IT Act, 1961—Disalloance—In absence of establishment that now the assessee considered useful life of tools to be one year instead of three years, addition made under s. 26 of the Act is justified—National Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2009) 313 ITR 419 (ITAT-Delhi)

Reference: – As Per Section 23(1) Of the Income Tax Act 1961

The annual value of any property shall be deemed to be—

(a) The sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year; or

(b) where the property or any part of the property is let and the actual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is in excess of the sum referred to in clause (a), the amount so received or receivable; or

(c) where the property or any 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 by the owner in respect thereof is less than the sum referred to in clause (a), the amount so received or receivable :

Provided that the taxes levied by any local authority in respect of the property shall be deducted (irrespective of the previous year in which the liability to pay such taxes was incurred by the owner according to the method of accounting regularly employed by him) in determining the annual value of the property of that previous year in which such taxes are actually paid by him.

Explanation.—for the purposes of clause (b) or clause (c) of this sub-section, the amount of actual rent received or receivable by the owner shall not include, subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, the amount of rent which the owner cannot realize.

Leave a Reply