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

Samir Harish Divecha, Mumbai vs. Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4489/MUM/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return U/S 139(1). I.E. 31.10.2023 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order U/S 250(6) Dated 15/05/2024 Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao Without Appreciating That Form 10 Ie Could Not Be Filed Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return U/S 139(1) I.E. 31.10.2023 Due To Technical Glitch. 3. That The Order Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, Is Bad In Law As The Requirement Of Filing Of Form 10Ie Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return U/S 139(1) Is Directory In Nature Arid As Such The Benefit Of Lower Tax Rate Cannot Be Denied. 4. That The Order Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, Is Bad In Law As Since The Adoption Of Lower Tax Rate As Per Section 115Bac Cannot Be Brought Under The Ambit Of Adjustment U/S 143(1) Which Covers 'Arithmetical Error, Incorrect Claim, Disallowance Of Loss, Disallowance Of Expenditure, Disallowance Of Deduction Or Addition Of Income Appearing In Form 26As Or Form 16A”.

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250(6)

Manish Kumar Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, Del-W-(73)(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2298/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

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

Arun Kumar Sharma, Delhi vs. ITO, CPC Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1563/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 143(1)

Mr. Madan Lachhmandas Asrani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(1)6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 1544/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainmr. Madan Lachhmandas Vs. Ito, Ward – 23(1)(6) Asrani Piramal Chambers 601-B, Neelkanth Bldg, 98 Lalbaug, Mumbai – Marine Drive, Mumbai 400012. 400002. Pan/Gir No. Aaapa7892A (Applicant) (Respondent)

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

Ashok Patni Family Trust, Pune vs. The Asst./Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2782/PUN/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kiran SanmaneFor Respondent: Mrs. Indira Adakil
Section 143(1)Section 164Section 167BSection 2Section 3

Sow Rachna Rathi Family Trust, Pune vs. Dy Director of Income Tax CPC, Benguluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2713/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2713/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk
Section 143(1)Section 2Section 250Section 3

Nawander Arcade, Latur vs. ITO Ward -1, Latur

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

ITA 479/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 May 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.478 & 479/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2023-24 & 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Sachin KumarFor Respondent: Mrs. Indira Adakil
Section 250

Nawander Arcade, Latur vs. ITO Ward-1, Latur

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

ITA 478/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.478 & 479/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2023-24 & 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Sachin KumarFor Respondent: Mrs. Indira Adakil
Section 250

Rajeev Pandurang Kamat, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2602/PUN/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2602/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2023-24 Rajeev Pandurang Kamat, Flat No. E3 & E4 Harshada Garden Apartments, Paud Road, Mahaganesh Colony, Pune-411038 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3), Pune Pan : Abepk3431E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad Shah Department By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05-05-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2024 Of The Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Ludhiana [“Addl./Jcit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay") 2023-24. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) The Ld. Cpc Erred (Cit (A) In Confirming) In Denying The Benefit U/S 115Bac Of The It Act & Thereby Erred In Raising Demand Of Rs.87,160/- By Calculating The Tax Under Old Regime. 2) The Ld. Cpc Erred (Cit (A) In Confirming) In Not Appreciating The Fact That Belated Form 10Ie Was Already Filed In Ay 22-23. 3) The Ld. Cpc Erred (Cit (A) In Confirming) In Not Appreciating The Fact That Filing Form 10Ie Is Directory In Nature & Not Mandatory. 4) The Appellant Craves For To Leave, Add, Alter, Modify, Delete Above Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Hearing, In The Interest Of Natural Justice.” 2

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 115BSection 139Section 143(1)

Annie Joseph, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Kottayam

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

ITA 237/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2021-22 Annie Joseph .......... Appellant Polson Bakers, Near Ksrtc Bus Stand, Pala 686575 [Pan: Awgpj3719H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Kottayam .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Ramya N., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Bhargavkumar Parsottambhai Patel HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2083/AHD/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2023-24 Arun Gopilal Samnani The I.T.O., Ward-5(3)(1) 7, Bank Of Baroda Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. P.T. College Paldi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aywps 2887 D Assessment Year :2023-24 Bhargavkumarparsottambh The I.T.O., Ward-1(2)(1) Ai Patel-Huf Vs Ahmedabad. B/301, 3Rd Floor Shree Saran-2 Opp: Anand Niketan School Thaltej, Ahmedabad 380089. Pan : Aalhb 2685 R

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, AR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 253(6)

Arun Gopilal Samnani, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2082/AHD/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2023-24 Arun Gopilal Samnani The I.T.O., Ward-5(3)(1) 7, Bank Of Baroda Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. P.T. College Paldi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aywps 2887 D Assessment Year :2023-24 Bhargavkumarparsottambh The I.T.O., Ward-1(2)(1) Ai Patel-Huf Vs Ahmedabad. B/301, 3Rd Floor Shree Saran-2 Opp: Anand Niketan School Thaltej, Ahmedabad 380089. Pan : Aalhb 2685 R

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, AR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 253(6)

Shilpi Sureshbhai Bapna, Surat vs. ADIT, CPC Bengaluru

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

ITA 1251/SRT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Kishore Gheewala, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80CSection 80T

Subhash Sukdeo Chaudhary, at Post Shirdi vs. Dy Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengluru, Bengaluru

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

ITA 354/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar UttamchandFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 115BSection 143(1)

Veena Khindri, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

ITA 443/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Mar 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

Rahul Khindri, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (1), Amritsar

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 37/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 37/Asr/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Rahul Khindri, बनाम A.O., Cpc, 2157, Bazar Sirki Banda, Banglore Katra Dullo, Amritsar Indra Nagar, 143001 स्थधयी लेखध सं./Pan No: Apfpk9150F अपीलधथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) निर्धाररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Rohit Kapoor, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr.Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2024 उदघोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- 1. That The Ld. C1T(A) Vide Order U/S 250(6) Dated 31.07.2023 Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Not Providing The Benefit Of Lower Tax As Per Section 115Bac Due To The Fact That Form 10 Ie Was Not Filed Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return U/S 139(1) I.E. 31.12.2021. 37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 2

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250(6)

Digvijay Finlease Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1139/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 154

Shyamsundar Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(4), Durgapur

In the result, the appeal stands disposed of with the above direction

ITA 1653/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

V. Meera Charitable Trust, Virudhunagar vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Madurai

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

ITA 2140/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2140/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2022-23 V. Meera Charitable Trust, The Income Tax Officer, 4, Geethalaya Building, Vs. Exemption Ward, Chairman Shanmugam Road, Madurai. Sivakasi, Virudhunagar-626123. [Pan: Aaatv 0582C]

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A FGFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 111ASection 112Section 112ASection 115BSection 143(1)Section 2Section 2(29)Section 2(29)(C)

Sumana Arora, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2450/BANG/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath .L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 234A