VIRENDER MALIK,SAGORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(4), PUNE

ITA 1810/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 September 2025AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s. 80C, exemption of Rs. 63,566/- u/s. 10, deduction of interest of Rs. 60,353/- u/s. 24, and deduction u/s. 80TTA of Rs. 3,190/-. For the penalty appeal (ITA No. 1810/PUN/2025), the Tribunal followed a binding precedent and directed the deletion of the penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a doctor in the Army, appealed against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2020-21, which arose from an assessment order under Section 143(3). The assessee claimed deductions and exemptions that were not allowed by the Assessing Officer, citing a belief that they were as per law, and attributing reliance on tax consultants.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for the claimed deductions under Section 80C, 10(14), 24, and 80TTA. Whether the penalty levied under Section 270A is sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 80C,Section 80TTA,Section 10(14),Section 24,Section 270A,Section 270A(8),Section 270A(9),Section 80CCC,Section 80CCD(1),Section 16

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak – AR
For Respondent: Shri Ambarnath Khule – JCIT(DR)
Hearing: 02/09/2025Pronounced: 19/09/2025

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These two appeals filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal(NFAC) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2020-21 dated 04.06.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA Nos.1809 & 1810/PUN/2025 [A]

1.

1 At the time of hearing, Assessee filed additional grounds of appeal which are as under : “1] The assessee submits that the ld.A.O. has erred in not granting deduction u/s.80C of Rs.1,50,000/-. 2] The ld.A.O. erred

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 80C

All 658 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →