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 144 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.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.202

Section 115BAC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 202 (New tax regime for individuals, Hindu undivided family and others) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 202 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 115BAC is Mela Ram & Sons. v. CIT (29 ITR 607), cited in 29 of the 144 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

Filing Form 10-IE after the due date is a directory requirement, not mandatory, for opting into the concessional tax regime under section 115BAC. The benefit of the scheme should not be denied if the form is available during processing.

Akshay Devendra Birari v. DCIT

164 Taxmann.com 58 · 2024 · Reported

citing judgments

Failure to file Form 10-IE by the due date does not automatically disentitle an assessee from opting for the new tax regime under Section 115BAC if the form is available with the CPC at the time of processing the return. The requirement of filing Form 10-IE is considered procedural and directory, not mandatory.

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

Ujwal Prakash Surana, Malegaon vs. Ward 1 Malegaon, Malegaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 37/PUN/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2022-23 Ujwal Prakash Surana, Income Tax Officer, 73, 3/4, Janprity Bunglow, Ward – 1, Malegaon Camp Road, Gayatri Naar, Vs. Malegaon Camp, Malegaon-423203 Pan : Affps7618C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anup LaddaFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Anand

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(1)Section 250

Priyamvada Singhal, Kanti Nagar Station Road, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle 7, Jaipur, Jaipur Rajasthan

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1412/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2026

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptapriyamvada Singhal Vs. Dcit 8, Kanti Nagar Station Circle 7 Road, Jaipur 302006 Jaipur "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No:Dwvps 2851 B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Mukesh Soni, Adv. & Sh. Vikas Gupta Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, Jcit Date Of Hearing 04.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2026 O R D E R The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Addl./Jcit (A)-4, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 04.08.2025 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”)

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 111ASection 111BSection 115BSection 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 250Section 87A

Balshiram Dattatray Thorat, Pune vs. ITO Ward- 11(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3132/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2023-24 Balshiram Dattatray Thorat, The Income Tax Officer, 19, Akshay, 156/1B, Ward-11(1), Pune, Mangalwar Peth, Vs. Pmt Building, Parge Chowk, Shankar Seth Road, Kasba Peth, Pune, S.O., Pune, Maharashtra-411037. Maharashtra-411011. Pan : Aanpt9647D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sarang Gudhate Department By : Shri Mukul Kulkarni (Virtually) Date Of Hearing : 08-04-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-06-2026 O R D E R Per Astha Chandra, J.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Mukul Kulkarni

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

Deeba, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3599/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Balakrishnan Sआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3599/Chny/2025 िनधा&रण वष&/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Deeba, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 33, By-Pass Road, Ward -2(1), Kodumudi, Erode – 638 151. Erode. [Pan: Aqypd-8901-B] (अपीलाथ)/Appellant) (*+थ)/Respondent) अपीलाथ) की ओर से / Appellant By : Mr. Vijayakumar, Ca *+थ) की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. S. Chandramouli, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Mr. Vijayakumar, CAFor Respondent: Mr. S. Chandramouli, JCIT

Section 115BSection 139(4)Section 15B

Jayshreeben Rajeshbhai Thakor, Vapi Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Palghar, Chintupada Road

In the result, the ap the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1302/MUM/2026[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Thakwani (SR DR)For Respondent: Shri Darshit Naik (Virtually Present)

Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 87A

Sabitha Saju, Ernakulam vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikode

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 953/COCH/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jun 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2024-25

For Appellant: Ms. K Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Snr AR

Section 111ASection 115BSection 143(1)Section 87Section 87A

Dr. Aruna Jonathan, Salem vs. Circle 1(1), Salem

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

ITA 875/CHNY/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 875/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dr.Aruna Jonathan The Deputy Commissioner Of No.5, Kiruba Hospital Vs. Income-Tax, Rajaji Road, Kumarasamipatti Circle 1(1), Salem. Salem – 636 007. [Pan: Aazpj2642N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : --- None --- प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2026 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Ms.Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT

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

Augustina Joseph Kiruba, Salem vs. Circle 1(1), Salem

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

ITA 842/CHNY/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 842/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Augustina Joseph Kiruba The Deputy Commissioner Of No.5, Kiruba Hospital Vs. Income-Tax, Rajaji Road, Kumarasamipatti Circle 1(1), Salem. Salem – 636 007. [Pan: Abzpk8622L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Ms.Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT

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

Sandeep Kumar, Rohtak vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1298/DEL/2026[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumars & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2023-24 Sandeep Kumar Vs. Ito Ward-2 Rohtak H.No.1301 Huda Sector-3 Haryana-124001 Rohtak-1204001(Haryana) Pan No. Apnpk6978B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154

Sarikaben Gopalbhai Polekar, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1, Bardoli

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 997/SRT/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jun 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Sarikaben Gopalbhai Polekar, Income Tax Officer, 2139, Nr. New Ganesh Dairy, Ward 1, Bardoli, Zanda Chowk, Vs. Surat -396195 Tarsadi, Surat– 394120 Pan: Amapp1616M (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Darshit J Naik, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2026 O R D E R Per : Suchitra Kamble, J M: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit(A)-4, [In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”], Bengaluru, Dated 19.08.2025 For The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2024-25. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “) The Appellant Objects To The Erroneous Demand Of Rs. 30,880/- Determined Vide Intimation U/S 143(1). 2) The Appellant Objects To Non-Grant Of Rebate In The Intimation U/S 143(1) While Computing The Total Tax Payable By The Appellant. 3) Both Lower Authorities Erred In Not Granting Rebate U/S 87A Of The Act Of Rs. 25,000/- Claimed Against Tax Payable On Long Term Capital Gains U/S 112, Even Though The Act Permits The Said Rebate Of Tax Against Tax Payable On Long Term Capital Gains U/S 112. Ms. Sarikaben Gopalbhai Polekar

For Appellant: Shri Darshit J Naik, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 111ASection 112Section 112(6)Section 112A(6)Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 234BSection 87A

Suman Devi Baid, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Guwahati

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 29/GTY/2026[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Apr 2026AY 2024-25

For Appellant: Sh. Yash Kaparia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 87A

Ami Dushyant Ansodaria, Ahmedabad vs. CPC, Bengluru Present Juris.-ITO Ward 3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 401/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah & Shri Gulab Thakor, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(3)

Avinash Singh, Moradabad vs. ITO-2(1), Moradabad

ITA 1182/DEL/2026[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2023-24 Sh. Avinash Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer-2(1) Opposite Hi Land Exports, Moradabad Kothiwal Nagar Station New Moradabad Road, Moradabad- 244001, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Pan: Cwwps9672N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Sanjeev Kachhal, Ca Department By Sh. Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. Dr

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

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