Which cases are most cited on Section 80C?

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Delco India Pvt. Ltd. (67 Taxmann.com 357) — 42 citing judgments; Ramco Cements Ltd. v. DCIT (373 ITR 146) — 28 citing judgments; CIT v. Surinder Pal Anand, Surinder Pal Anand (242 CTR 61) — 20 citing judgments; Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mamta Agarwal (171 Taxmann.com 54) — 10 citing judgments; Mrs. Meera Jacob v. ITO (313 ITR 411) — 6 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 80C?

BharatTax indexes 658 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 80C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 80C of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.123

Section 80C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 123 (Deduction for life insurance premia, deferred annuity, contributions to provident fund, etc) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 123 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 80C is Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Delco India Pvt. Ltd. (67 Taxmann.com 357), cited in 42 of the 658 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 80C

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Delco India Pvt. Ltd.

67 Taxmann.com 357 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

Additions made on the basis of WhatsApp chats or loose papers seized during a search can be deleted if the assessee proves they were not involved in those transactions and the evidence lacks substantiation. The burden of proof lies with the revenue to connect the seized material to the assessee.

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.

CIT v. Surinder Pal Anand, Surinder Pal Anand

242 CTR 61 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

When an assessee opts for the presumptive taxation scheme under Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, offering income at a specified percentage of gross receipts, they are exempt from maintaining books of account and are not obligated to explain individual entries of cash deposits unless such entries lack nexus with the gross receipts.

Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mamta Agarwal

171 Taxmann.com 54 · 2025 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Mrs. Meera Jacob v. ITO

313 ITR 411 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

401 ITR 215. (b) Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. Janak Shantilal Mehta

124 Taxmann.com 516 · 2021 · High Court

citing judgments

V.M. Salgaonkar & Brother (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

281 CTR 191 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 80C

Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1000/Rjt/2026 [ िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2022-23 ] Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), Soham, 2B-9, Ganesh Park-1, Income Tax Office, 5Th Floor, New Vs. Near Mama Saheb Temple, Raiya Aayakar Bhawan, Rajkot, Road, Rajkot, Gujarat-360007 Gujarat-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Asgpj4670B (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2026 :: आदेश/Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am : Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section-250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 19.05.2026 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) Of The Act, Dated 02.02.2024. 2. The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee, In This Appeal, Is That Assessing Officer Disallowed, Loss From House Property Of Rs. 2,00,000/-, The Deduction Of Rs. 1,50,000/- Under Section 80C & A Specific Amount Of Deduction Of Rs. 13,437/- Under Section 80D Of The Act. That Is, Assessing Officer Finalized The

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 80CSection 80D

Amit Kumar Rai, Ramnagar, West Champaran vs. Income Tax Officer, Bettiah, Bihar

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

ITA 223/PAT/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Gopalan Gurusamy

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69ASection 80C

Shailesh Khodabhai Ramani, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-2(1)(3), Rajkot

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 366/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Oct 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 244ASection 80C

Shailesh Khodabhai Ramani, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-2(1)(5), Rajkot

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 257/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Oct 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 244ASection 80C

Trinath Mandal, Koriya vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 717/RPR/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.717/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Trinath Mandal Driver Colony, Dumanhill, Sonawani Colleiry, Koriya (C.G.)-497 557 Pan: Amipm6539L

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rituparna Namdeo, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 80CSection 89(1)

Mukesh Mishra, Thane vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Thane

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

ITA 5853/MUM/2026[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Rakesh Kumar Lodhaassessment Year: 2020-2021 Mukesh Mishra Acit, Circle 1, Thane 2A/142, Pristine, Kalpataru Qureshi Mansion, Hills, Near Tikujini Wadi, Gokhale Road, Thane Vs. Manpada, Thane – 400 602 Thane- 400610 Maharashtra Maharashtra Pan- Anjpm3526D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue Represented By : Shri Prasana Prakash Tewari Sr Ar Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2026 O R D E R Per : Shri Rakesh Kumar Lodha: This Appeal Has Been Field By The Assessee, Against An Order Dated 10-03-2026, Under Section 250 Of The Act, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Nfac”], For The Assessment Year

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 45Section 69

Vishnuram Joshi, Shivpuri vs. Income Tax Officer Ashok Nagar, Ashok Nagar

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

ITA 604/AGR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun06 Oct 2026AY 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80C

Vishnuram Joshi, Shivpuri vs. Income Tax Officer Ashok Nagar, Ashok Nagar

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

ITA 604/AGR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Oct 2026AY 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80C

Sameer Nagendra Dalia, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(2) Previous Ward-1(2)(5), Vadodara

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

ITA 304/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Gangadhar Pandaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.304/Ahd/2026 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sameer Nagendra Dalia Income Tax Officer 502, Pashwanath Residency, Nr. बनाम/ Ward-1(2)(2), Darbar Chokdi, Manjalpur S.O., Previous Ward-1(2)(5), V S / . Vadodara, Gujarat-390011 Vadodara "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Auspd2110J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahamadrurani Khatri, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 250Section 44ASection 69ASection 69CSection 80C

Lina Pravin Gaikwad, Barshi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Solapur

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

ITA 1169/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Sept 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1169/Pun/2026 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Lina Pravin Gaikwad, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Gala No.36, Ward-2(3), Solapur Pjn Market Yard, Solapur – 413401 Maharashtra Pan : Bqrpg2597L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar

Section 143(3)Section 80C

Ramesh Singh, Farrukhabad, U.P vs. ITO, Farrukhabad, U.P

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 124/AGR/2026[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Sept 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: : Sunil Kumar Singhbrajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80C

Praveen Kumar Saini, Jhunjhunu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 325/JPR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Sept 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Us. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Supported By An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay, Stating That The Impugned Order Was Served On The Portal & That The Assessee Came To Know Of Its Passing Only When He Visited The Office Of His Counsel In February 2026. Having Considered The Same, We Are Satisfied That There Was Sufficient Cause For The Delay. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 69Section 69ASection 80C

Anshu Bansal, Lucknow vs. ITO- 1(1), Lucknow-New, Lucknow

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

ITA 842/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Sept 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Akash Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sudhakar Shukla, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 44A

Priya Nigam, Lucknow vs. NFAC Delhi/ITO-3(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 1010/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Sept 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2021-22 Priya Nigam, Vs. Ito-3(1), Lucknow 490/1 Ka, Nazier Ganj, Daliganj, Near Bsnl Tower, Lucknow Pan: Atipn0438L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Prashant Verma, Adv Revenue By: Smt. Pratibha Singh, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 8.08.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) For The Assessment Year 2021-22 Dated 27.12.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because, The Id. Cit (A) Has Failed To Know The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Has Arbitrarily Give The Decision Thereof Is Bad In Law & Liable To Quashed. 02.Because, The Id. Cit (A) Has Erred While Not Giving An Opportunity Of Being Heard & Dismissing The Appeal Merely On The Grounds Of Delay, Hence It Is Bad In Law & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice "Audi Alteram Partem" Of Constitution Of India. 03.Because, The Id. Ao Has Failed To Consider Reply & Submission Alongwith Supporting Documents Filed By The Appellant During Assessment Proceeding Is Not Justified By Law & Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Ao Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. Prashant Verma, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Pratibha Singh, Addl CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)