Which cases are most cited on Section 115BAC?

Mela Ram & Sons. v. CIT (29 ITR 607) — 29 citing judgments; Ramco Cements Ltd. v. DCIT (373 ITR 146) — 28 citing judgments; Harbans Singh v. AO, CPC (165 Taxmann.com 146) — 11 citing judgments; Akshay Devendra Birari v. DCIT (164 Taxmann.com 58) — 10 citing judgments; PCIT v. KGY Glass Industries (P.) Ltd. (156 Taxmann.com 18) — 9 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 115BAC?

BharatTax indexes 85 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 115BAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 115BAC of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 115BAC of the Income Tax Act?

Mela Ram & Sons. v. CIT (29 ITR 607) is the decision most relied on for Section 115BAC, cited in 29 judgments. An appeal presented out of time is still an appeal, and an order dismissing it as time-barred is an order passed in appeal. An appeal decided without considering the delay is required to be decided on condonation of delay even if admitted.

The decision most relied on for Section 115BAC is Mela Ram & Sons. v. CIT (29 ITR 607), cited in 29 of the 85 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 115BAC

Mela Ram & Sons. v. CIT

29 ITR 607 · 1956 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

An appeal presented out of time is still an appeal, and an order dismissing it as time-barred is an order passed in appeal. An appeal decided without considering the delay is required to be decided on condonation of delay even if admitted.

Ramco Cements Ltd. v. DCIT

373 ITR 146 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessee can make a claim of deduction for the first time before the appellate authorities.

Harbans Singh v. AO, CPC

165 Taxmann.com 146 · 2024 · ITAT

citing judgments

Akshay Devendra Birari v. DCIT

164 Taxmann.com 58 · 2024 · Reported

citing judgments

PCIT v. KGY Glass Industries (P.) Ltd.

156 Taxmann.com 18 · 2023 · High Court

citing judgments

Arun Gopilal Samnani v. ITO

174 Taxmann.com 33 · 2025 · Reported

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 115BAC

SARIKA AGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 50 (1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8832/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2023-24] Sarika Aggarwal, Income Tax Officer, 10/5, East Patel Nagar, Ward-50(1), Civic Centre, Delhi-110008 Vs New Delhi-110002 Pan-Bolps2864A Appellant Respondent Appellant/Assessee By None Respondent/Revenue By Shri Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026 Order Per Amitabh Shukla, Am

Section 115BSection 154Section 80CSection 80T

DHANESH JIVABHAI VAISHYA,DAMAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN WARD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 864/SRT/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Neel Hatkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Uke, Sr. D.R

Section 111ASection 115BSection 87A

GTPL KCBPL BROAD BAND PVT. LTD.,LAKE TOWN, KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2711/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2023-24 Gtpl Kcbpl Broad Band Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Private Limited

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Patodia & Sonal Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dipu Koley, Sr. DR

Section 40Section 87A

ALPA HARSHADBHAI GANDHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2153/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)

BHAGWANDAS SURAJKARAN SOMANI HUF,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THANE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8629/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 115B

BHAGWANDAS SURAJKARAN SOMANI HUF,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THANE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8628/MUM/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 115B

BHAGWANDAS SURAJKARAN SOMANI HUF,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THANE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8627/MUM/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 115B

SANDEEP ARNUJ NARANG,MUMBAI vs. ITO 27(3)(1), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 6727/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Blesandeep Arjun Narang, Ito 27(3)(1), 401, Runwal Grand, Mumbai Vs. 18Th Road, Chembur (East), Mumbai- 400 071. Pan : Adnpn1216D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms Tisha BaghFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)

SEKAR GOVINDASWAMY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1989/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22 Shri. Sekar Govindaswamy, Addl/Jcit(A) - 1, No.306 Theja Sunshine Complex, Ludhiana. 16Th D Cross Pai Layout, K. R. Puram, Vs. Bangalore – 560 008, Karnataka. Pan No : Ayyps 5005 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Anto Joseph, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri. Anto Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 115Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

RAGU RAM KESHAVA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, I restore the issue to the file of the Ld

ITA 1320/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year : 2022-23 Shri Raghurama Keshava Reddy, 138, 6Th Main, 1St Main, 1St Cross, The Income Tax Officer, Shankarnagar, Bangalore, Ward-6[2][1], Vs. Karnataka – 560 096. Bangalore. Pan: Aeepk1493D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kashinath Kalamath, Advocate

Section 143(1)

BHUVANA RAJESWARI VIJAYASANKAR,SALEM vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3379/CHNY/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: MR. G AKASH, Adv

Section 115Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)

JAYANTILAL MOOLCHAND VANIGOTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD, 42(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 5835/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Jayantilal Moolchand Vanigota Ito,Ward-42(2)(3), Mumbai 1602, Aaditya Tower, B-Wing, Vs 753, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra V.P. Road, Girgaon, Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400007. Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Abtpv9460D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 254(1)Section 80A(5)

SHREYAS PARADKAR,MIRA ROAD vs. ITO 1(1) THANE, THANE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4721/MUM/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2023-24 Shreyas Paradkar (Individual), Ito Range 1(1), C/O Ca Rahul Godbole & Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, Vs. Associates, 204, Spectra, Kothrud, Road No. 162, Wagle Indl. Pune – 411038. Estate, Pan- Cvzpp8788C Thane – 400604. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shir H.V. Datar, (Virtually Present) Revenue By : Shri Vinod Kumar V., Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2023-24. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Has Claimed That He Opted For The New Tax Regime While Filing His Return Of Income On 25Th July 2023 By Entering All The Data On The Income-Tax Website. On Selecting The New Tax Regime, The Income-Tax Website Showed Tax Payable At ₹5,000 After Giving Credit For Tds & Therefore, The Assessee Paid The Respective Tax Payable & Submitted The Itr. The Assessee, On The Last Page Of The Itr, Computed The Tax As Per The New Regime, But Somehow, On The First Page Of The Return Of Income Filed, It Is Shown That The Assessee Did Not Opt For The New Tax Regime. This Was A Glitch On The Website, But Somehow, The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed Vide Intimation Dated 29.12.2023, Whereby The Taxable Income And/Or Return Filed By The Assessee Was Computed As Per The Old Regime & Not As Per The New Tax Regime Mainly For The Reason That The Assessee Failed To File The Relevant 2 Shreyas Paradkar (Individual)

For Appellant: Shir H.V. Datar, (Virtually Present)For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar V., SR. D.R

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

MURUGAPANDIAN (HUF),SALEM vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 2481/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri. R. Joseph RichardFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

MURUGAPANDIAN HUF,SALEM vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2480/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Joseph Richard for Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

RAJENDER SINGH SIHAG,HISAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HISAR, HISAR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8500/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8500/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2023-24 Rajender Singh Sihag, Vs Income Tax Officer, 2022, Sector-14, Hisar, Ward-1, Haryana-125001 Hisar, Haryana-125001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bhzps5598A Assessee By: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.01.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2023-24 Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Raipur’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1082189810(1) Dated 31.10.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)

KANHAIYA LAL PANCHAL,RATLAM vs. BPL-W-(91)(95), RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 702/IND/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2024-25 Kanhaiya Lal Panchal, Bpl-W-(91)(95) 1, Jadwasa Kala, बनाम/ Ratlam Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aqrpp0055D Assessee By Shri Kaide Kangsawala, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

Section 111ASection 112Section 112ASection 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 3(6)Section 81Section 87A