Section 115BAC of the Income Tax Act

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
29
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
28
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
11
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
10
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
9
citing judgments
Arun Gopilal Samnani v. ITO
174 Taxmann.com 33 · 2025 · Reported
7
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 115BAC

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

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

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

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

For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

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

Vaitianadin, Puducherry vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Puducherry

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

ITA 2466/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2466/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri V.Meenakshi Sundar, C.A GHFor Respondent: Shri M.Subashri, Addl. CIT(virtual)
Section 115BSection 139(9)Section 143(1)

Jasbir Singh Sarao and Sons, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 1235/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: the expiry of 30 days from the date of filing of return of income. Since the e-verification was done beyond that time limit, the benefit of new regime was denied to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action on the ground that the return was e-verified on 24-08-2023 which was after due date of return of income being 31-07-2023. The Ld. CIT(A) referred to Notification No.05 of 2022 dated 29-07-2022 issued by DGIT (Systems), CBDT providing that the date of verification was to be consid

For Appellant: Sh. Vineet Krishan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)

Ravi Kant Luthra, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 444/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 444/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ravi Kant Luthra, 1-Patel Vs. Adit, Cpc, Chowk Guru Bazar, Amritsar. Bengaluru. [Pan:-Alnpk7173Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Himanshu Gupta, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

Raj Kumar Agarwal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 398/SRT/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.398/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2023-24) (Hybrid Hearing) Raj Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Ito, B-303, Megh Malhar Apartment, Ward – 2(2)(1), Near Vidhya Bharti School, Bhatar Surat Road, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abtpa0902D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2025

Section 115BSection 154Section 250Section 250(6)

Ajay Kumr Jhunjhunwala & Sons, Shillong vs. ACIT, Shillong

Appeal is allowed

ITA 142/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: us, the Ld. AR pointed out that the findings given by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) where factually wrong as the assessee had duly filed Form 10-IE on 10.02.2022. A copy of this form was placed before us for perusal in a paper book. This form was filed for assessment year 2021-22. For record the first page of the Form is extracted as under:

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 250

Shobhit Gupta, Lucknow vs. DDIT CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 597/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2022-23 Shobhit Gupta V. Ddit Cpc C-241 Nirala Nagar, Lucknow- Central Processing 226020. Centre, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru. Pan: Ajkpg9478R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Prakash Agarwal, Advocate Shri Akshay Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 10 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 11 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Prakash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 154Section 44A

Rose Trust, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 725/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.725/Del/2025, A.Y. 2023-24 Rose Trust, Dy. Commissioner Of B-60/61, C/O Bajaj Auto Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-49(1), Naraina Ind. Area, Phase-Ii, Vs. Civic Centre, Mito Road New Delhi-110028 New Delhi Pan: Aaatr0380G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Vasanti Patel, Ar Sh. Mahendra Gohel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2023-24 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.12.2024 Of The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Mysore [‘Addl. Cit(A)’].

Section 11Section 115ASection 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 2

Pankaj Goswami, Delhi vs. Centralised Processing Centre, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5941/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2023-24 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Pankaj Goswami, C/O- M K Bhatt & Co., Cas, Ward-5(1)(3), G-7, Preet Vihar, Noida New Delhi Pan: Ajjpg3419P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Malav Goswami, Adv. Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

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

Seshank Mahadev, Chennai vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru

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

ITA 2274/CHNY/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2274/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2024-25 Seshank Mahadev, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ak 27, Tas Enclave, E2, Golden King Corporate Ward 3(1), Villa Apartments, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 040. [Pan:Olwps5532Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Varadharajan, F/O Of Assessee ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.06.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A), Indore For The Assessment Year 2024-25. 2. At The Outset, We Note That The Cpc Denied The Rebate Claimed By The Assessee Under Section 87A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Vide Intimation Order Under Section 143(1) Of The Act Dated 12.11.2024. Against The Intimation Order, The Assessee Preferred An 2

For Appellant: Shri Varadharajan, F/o of assesseeFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 111ASection 112ASection 115BSection 143(1)Section 250Section 3Section 87A

Manjar Discretionary Family Trust, Rajkot vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(1), Rajkot

ITA 164/RJT/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Oct 2025AY 2024-25
Section 143(1)Section 164Section 244A
Section 115BAC Income Tax Act (2025: s.202) — Case Laws | BharatTax