In Circular 204 dated 24.7.1976, the CBDT has accepted that u/s 23(1)(a) the “sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year” is the municipal valuation of the property. The same view that the Municipal valuation is the annual value u/s 23(1)(a) has been taken in CIT vs. Prabhabati Bansali 141 ITR 419 (Cal) & M.V. Sonavala vs. CIT 177 ITR 246 (Bom);
The contrary view in Makrupa Chemicals 108 ITD 95 (Mum) & Baker Technical Services (P) Ltd 126 TTJ (Mumbai)(TM) 455 that annual value determined by the Municipal authorities is not binding on the AO while determining the annual value u/s 23(1)(a) if it can be shown that the rateable value under the municipal laws does not represent the correct fair rent cannot be followed in view of M.V. Sonavala 177 ITR 246 (Bom) where it was held that the rateable value under the municipal law has to be adopted as annual value u/s 23(1)(a);
Note: The issue whether notional interest can be considered u/s 23(1)(a) is pending before the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Moni Kumar Subba
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN(J.M) & SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR(A.M)
