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

Anand Rao Pilli, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 359/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Smt. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Sri Mookambikeyan S-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 80C

Srinivas Rao Thumati, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Warangal

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

ITA 755/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mookambikeyan S. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80C

Shri Ganesh Goyal, Kishangarh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 683/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)

Section 80C

Shri Ganesh Goyal, Kishangarh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 682/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)

Section 80C

Parminder Singh Sabharwal, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3469/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80CSection 80D

Smt. Saroj Devi Chodhary, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 1031/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Raovk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1031/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2011-12 Cuke Smt. Saroj Chaudhary The Ito Om Impex, Tateda Mod Ward- 7(3) Vs. Via: Govindgarh, Tehsil:Chomu, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Afopc 3325 G

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari, JCIT-DR

Section 80C

Ms Surbhi Agrawal, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 649/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar Jain (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 80C

Bhagwan Singh Poswal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the

ITA 190/JPR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Mundra (CA)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 68Section 69

ITO, Jaipur vs. Bhagwan Singh Poswal, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the

ITA 105/JPR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Mundra (CA)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 68Section 69

Shri Ajay Bansal, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4946/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhshri Ajay Bansal Vs Acit-Circle 19(1), Mumbai C/O B.M. Parekh & Co. 203/3, Navjivan Society, Lamington Road, Mumbai-400 008. Pan : Aacpb6224B Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 36Section 57Section 80C(2)(xviii)

Mr. Vijay Agarwal, Meerut vs. DCIT, Faridabad

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

ITA 5435/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Years: 2008-09 Vijay Aggarwal Dcit C/O M/S. Kashyap & Co. Vs Central Circle- 1 Cas, 214, Citi Centre, Faridabad Begum Bridge Road, Meerut – 250001 Pan No. Aazpa6461C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153Section 24Section 271Section 80

Mr. Vijay Agarwal, Meerut vs. DCIT, Faridabad

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

ITA 5434/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Section 153Section 24Section 271Section 80

Sh. Jitender Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3792/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Somil AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 64(1)Section 68Section 80C

Vijay Vyas, Guwahati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -03, Guwahati

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 154/GTY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13

Section 153ASection 80CSection 80D

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Amit Kumar Jain, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 5699/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2011-12] The Dy. C.I.T Vs. Shri Amit Kumar Jain Circle – 16(1) C – 215, Vivek Vihar New Delhi Delhi Pan No: Aaepj 3636 J [A.Y 2011-12] Shri Amit Kumar Jain Vs. The Dy. C.I.T C – 215, Vivek Vihar Circle – 16(1) Delhi New Delhi Pan No: Aaepj 3636 J

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 2Section 56Section 57

Shri Amit Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2426/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 2Section 56Section 57

Syed Masood Hussian, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2125/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.C. Rout, DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 44ASection 56(2)Section 80C

Pradeep Rajkarat, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 91/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.91/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Pradeep Raj Karat, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Ofs Dp, Sf Pri Campus, Bhubaneswar Ghatikia, Bhubaneswar-29 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Abrpk 4652 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 06/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)- 2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 28.01.2019 Passed In First Appeal No.0455/2015- 16 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That, The Learned Cit(A) Has Committed Serious Error In Not Quashing The Assessment Order Which Is Based On The Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As "The Act") Under The Direction Of Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Odisha Region, Bhubaneswar Which Is Illegal, Without Jurisdiction & Contrary To The Provisions Of The Act & For Which The Assessment Made Under Such Illegal Notice & Is Liable To Be Quashed And/Or Annulled. 2. That, The Learned Cit (A) Has Committed Serious Error By Not Deleting The Addition Made By The Learned Assessing Officer Of Rs. 3,61,535/-. 3. That, The Learned Cit (A) Has Committed Serious Error In Not Deleting The Disallowances Made By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Hra Of Rs.33,311/- Which Is Liable To Be Allowed.

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Sethi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 80C