No ad hoc estimate allowed; MRV must be basis for deemed rent computation:

The ITAT Mumbai granted partial relief by deleting the shop addition and directing a fresh review of the deemed rent calculation.
ITAT Deletes Shop Addition, Orders Fresh Check on Deemed Rent

No ad hoc estimate allowed; MRV must be basis for deemed rent computation
The present appeal has been filed by a taxpayer named Paramjit Singh Mohansingh Obhan (Appellant) against the Assistant. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 28(2), Navi Mumbai (Respondent), in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench “C”, Mumbai, before Shri Om Prakash Kant (Accountant Member) and Shri Anikesh Banerjee (Judicial Member). The case is related to the assessment year 2017-18, and the final decision was announced on November 10, 2025.
Background of Case:
The assessee is a real estate developer who filed his income tax return (ITR), declaring a total income of approximately Rs. 10.36 lakh. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) did not accept this income and completed the assessment by determining income at Rs. 1.25 crore after making three additions:
- Rs. 7.37 lakh as deemed rent on unsold flats,
- Rs. 4.07 lakh as profit on the capitalised shop, and
- Rs. 3.61 lakh for payment to a related party.
- However, the assessee argued that since the flats were part of business stock and not rented out, they should be treated as business assets, not as house property. Therefore, the assessee flagged this addition as unfair and urged the tribunal to delete this.
- Therefore, in conclusion, the ITAT Mumbai remanded the case to the AO to recalculate the deemed rent properly using MRV, not an ad hoc percentage.
- Therefore, in conclusion, the tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 4.07 lakh made of assessee by the AO.
- For ground 1 of deemed rent, the matter has been sent back to the assessing officer (AO) to recalculate using MRV. Meaning here, the appeal has been allowed for statistical purposes.
- For ground 2 of Conversion to Capital Asset, the tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 4.07 lakh, meaning the appeal has been completely allowed.
About Author

Saloni Kumari
Content Writer
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2587My Recent Articles
- Rs 1.48 Crore Interest on Delayed Property Payments Qualifies as Cost of Acquisition: ITAT DelhiPremium
- ROC Penalises Company and Director Rs 20,000 for Wrong AGM Date in Form AOC-4CFSPremium
- ROC Penalises Company's Eight Directors Over Non-Appointment of Two Independent Directors for FY 2015-16 to 2018-19Premium
- An Inadvertent Typographical Error in Tax Audit Report Should Not Lead to An Unmerited Disallowance, Rules ITATPremium
- 21 CBI Officials Honoured With President’s Medals for Distinguished and Meritorious Service on 80th Independence Day
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts
All Posts
Recent Posts
All Posts







