Receivable would mean that though annual value is fixed in terms of agreement even though it is not received in relevant year, yet same will be assessable to tax in terms of illustration given on behalf of assessee.

Held In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Akshay Textiles and Agencies Pvt. Ltd., it was held that Courts have construed the rent receivable in such circumstances to be either the standard rent or the rateable value as fixed by the local authority. Though the rateable value may also on occasions has to consider the standard rent in cases where the rent law may be applicable. Before the amendment brought about to Section 23 by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1st April, 2002 even if an assessee had received higher rent than the standard rent the additional amount would not be the subject of tax. To overcome this omission the section was substituted to cover also those cases where rent received was higher than the standard rent or rent based on municipal rateable value. If the argument of the assessee (sic-Revenue) is to be considered then expression "reasonable" would have to be given different meaning. In our opinion it is not possible to give a meaning of wider amplitude than what is contained in Section 23(1)(a). The legislature has substituted the provision and brought in Section 23(1)(b) to cover the part of the annual value which otherwise would not fall within the tax ambit before its amendment. In that context the expression "receivable " would mean that though the annual value is fixed in terms of the agreement even though it is not received in the relevant year, yet the same would be assessable to tax in terms of the illustration given on behalf of the assessee. The contention, therefore, as urged on behalf of the Revenue on the construction of expression "receivable" will have to be rejected. (Para 5) Considered view that the opinion expressed by Bombay High Court is sound and reasonable and requires to be followed. The emphasis placed upon expression “rent received or receivables” in explanation (2) to Rule 5 ought not to be given wide interpretation as is sought to be urged. For these reasons, the first question of law framed is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. (Para 6)