Section 89 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.157

Section 89 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 157 (Relief when salary, etc., is paid in arrears or in advance) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 157 of the 2025 Act

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

65 judgments on BharatTax turn on Section 89.

Judgments on Section 89

Nirmala Kaushik, Delhi vs. Income Tax Assessment Unit, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5301/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2026AY 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 89

Suresh Yashwant Awar, Igatpuri vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2660/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2660/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Suresh Yashwant Awar, Assistant Commissioner Of Mukkam, Post Mukane, Income Tax, Circle – 1, Igatpuri-422403 Vs. Aurangabad Pan : Agdpa8720A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Archana Shetty Department By : Shri Sandip Pawar Date Of Hearing : 08-04-2026 Date Of 12-06-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.09.2025 Of The Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai [“Addl./Jcit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2016-17. 2. Briefly Stated Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Was An Ex-Employee Of Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. (“Colgate Palmolive”) & Earned Income From Salary & Other Sources During The Relevant Ay 2016-17. For Ay 2016-17, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Electronically On 14.06.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.31,81,530/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”). Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason “Large Relief Claimed U/S 89”. Accordingly, Statutory Notice(S) Were Issued & Served Upon The Assessee Calling For The Requisite Details/Documents. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Filed His Written Submissions Providing The Requisite Details & Explanation. During The Relevant Ay 2016-17, Colgate Palmolive Had Offered Scheme-Ers (Early Retirement Scheme) Which Was 2

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Sandip Pawar

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 17(3)Section 89

Ram Dattatray Kaldate, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2177/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jun 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2177/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Ram Dattatray Kaldate, Ito, Ward-1(1), Vijay Kasnale, Plot No. Rm 103, Aurangabad Bajajnagar Midc Waluj, Vs. Aurangabad-431136 Pan : Asupk0994M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Archana Shetty Department By : Shri Sandip Pawar Date Of Hearing : 08-04-2026 Date Of 09-06-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.07.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2019-20. 2. Briefly Stated Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Ex-Employee Of M/S. Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad (“Pfizer India”). For Ay 2019-20, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 29.07.2019 Declaring Income Of Rs.60,34,360/- & Claiming Relief Of Rs.18,28,958/- U/S 89 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”). The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Issues Relating To Refund Claim & Relief For Arrear Salary Or Advance Salary. During The Ay 2019-20, The Assessee Received Rs.54,64,480/- As A Full & Final Settlement On Account Of His Voluntary Retirement From His Employment With Pfizer India Pursuant To Pfizer Healthcare India Private Limited Finance Scheme For Employees At Aurangabad, 2019 (“Scheme”) Which Was Framed By The Company & Offered To The Assessee Due To Closure Of Its Plant At Aurangabad. The Assessee Claimed The Said Amount As 2

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Sandip Pawar

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(xi)Section 89

Prakash Sukhdeo Sonawane, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2180/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jun 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2180/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Prakash Sukhdeo Sonawane, Ito, Ward-1(1), Rm 95 Bl No. 06, Bajajnagar, Aurangabad Midc Waluj, Aurangabad-431136 Vs. Pan : Bpqps2224J अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Archana Shetty Department By : Shri Sandip Pawar Date Of Hearing : 08-04-2026 Date Of 08-06-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.07.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2019-20. 2. Briefly Stated Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Ex-Employee Of M/S. Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad (“Pfizer India”). For Ay 2019-20, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Claiming A Refund Of Rs.22,97,400/- & Relief Of Rs.21,77,119/- U/S 89 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For Advance Salary Received. During The Ay 2019-20, The Assessee Opted To Retire Voluntarily From His Employment With Pfizer India Pursuant To The Pfizer Healthcare India Private Limited Finance Scheme For Employees At Aurangabad, 2019 (“Scheme”) Which Was Framed By The Company Due To Closure Of Its Plant At Aurangabad. Under The Said Scheme, The Assessee Received An Amount Aggregating To Rs.65,21,105/-, However, The Said Amount Was Not Claimed To Be A Capital Receipt In His Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 But The 2

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Sandip Pawar

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(xi)Section 89

Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Auraiya vs. ACIT Circle-1, Agra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/AGR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Jun 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15 Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1)(1), Agra 07, Kohinoor Bachelor Hostel, Gali Gaon, Auraiya Pan : Anxps0896C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Sharma, Adv Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (Dr) Date Of Hearing 20.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.06.2026 Order Per: Sunil Kumar Singh, J.M.

Section 143(2)Section 17(1)Section 17(2)Section 17(2)(vii)Section 17(3)Section 250Section 89Section 89(1)

Umesh Hanamant Shikhare, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 10(1), Pune

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

ITA 1030/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Pune01 Jun 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1030/Pun/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Umesh Hanamant Income Tax Shikhare Officer Ward- Flat No. 101, 10(1) Shubhankar Apartment, Pratyakshakar Vs. Kumthekar Road, Bhavan, Dr. Sadashiv Peth., Pune- Ambedkar Marg, 411030, Maharashtra Near Akurdi Pan- Adpps8635R Railway Station. Pune-411044, Maharashtra Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare.ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 89(1)

Ramesh Nivrutti Shelar, Aurangabad vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2500/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2500/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Muktabai Ramesh Shelar Acit Circle 1, (Legal Heir Of Late Ramesh Aaykar Bhavan, Nivrutti Shelar), Opp:Holy Cross Rx 5/13, Sawdamini How English High School, Rx5/13 Society, Vs. Aurangabad-431002 Bajaj Nagar, Waluj Midc Maharashtra. Room No. 12, Aurangabad-431136, Maharashtra. Pan- Axrps5588D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Archena Shetty.ARFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar

Section 143(2)Section 17(3)(i)Section 89

Chandrashekhar Jangde, Burhanpur vs. ITO, Burhanpur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 20/IND/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 May 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshichandrashekhar Jangde, Ito बनाम/ H.No. 109/3, Sagar Wadi, Burhanpur Vs. Lalbag, Burhanpur, Indore (M.P.) (Pan: Akqpj7888R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08.05.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 89Section 89(1)

Anju Sahadevan, Nashik vs. Income Tax Office Nashik Ward 2(1), Nashik

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

ITA 72/PUN/2026[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.72/Pun/2026 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2023-24 Anju Sahadevan, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Flat No.8, Manoj Appt., Happy Home Colony, Dwarka, Nashik- 422011. Pan : Dozps5949C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Pardeshi Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Sathe Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.11.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Jaipur [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assessing Officer & Cpc Erred In Passing The Impugned Intimation & Order Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Resulting In An Incorrect Demand Of Rs. 2,36,178 & Denial Of A Legitimate Refund, Without Proper Appreciation Of Facts & Law.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh PardeshiFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sathe

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 89Section 90

Kanaiyalal P Dana, Vadodara vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2148/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Ld.Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal On The Ground That The Return Was Filed Beyond The Due Date & Form No. 10E Filed One Day Prior To The Return Of Income Filed. Thus Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee.

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 89

Gopal Krishnan Gopinath, Chennai vs. Assessing Officer International Taxation, Bsnl Building Greams Road Chennai

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

ITA 3878/CHNY/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Mr. Balamurugan MFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 89

Dnyaneshwar Shinde, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1726/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prashant GhumareFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist

Section 10Section 147

Shamalbhai Lallubhai Prajapati, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 2031/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kambleshamalbhai Lallubhai Prajapati The Income Tax Vs. 22, Vidhyanagar Society Officer, Pethapur, S.O. Pethapur Ward-1, Gandhinagar – 382 610 Gandhinagar – 382 011

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: -None-

Section 143(1)Section 89Section 89A

Hasmukhbhai Mohanlal Shah, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2221/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years:2017-18

Section 139Section 153CSection 154Section 234A

Rama Rao Venu Gopala Rao, Tamil Nadu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Tamil Nadu

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

ITA 2877/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Amit Rai, C.A. (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri. K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl. C.I.T

Section 143(3)Section 89

Satinder Paul Through L/H Neelam Saini, Pinjore vs. Income Tax Officer, Panchkula

In the result, the ground no

ITA 136/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10(10)Section 143(1)

Vivekanand Ambadasrao Ghodke, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

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

ITA 2011/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Ms. Arrchena ShettyFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 89

Chattanathan Devarajan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 34(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4976/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Chattanathan Devarajan Income Tax Officer - 34(1)(1) 1101, Raheja Tipco Heights Mumbai Rani Sati Marg, Vs. Malad East Mumbai – 400067 (Pan: Abjpc6332P) (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 192Section 194Section 194ASection 271(1)(c)

Kalyanasundaram Ranjithkumar, Thiruvarur vs. ITO, Ncw-22(6), Tambaram

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

ITA 1622/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1622/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kalyanasundaram Ranjithkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 2/46A, Keela Padugai Po, Non Corporate Ward 22(6), Thiruvarur 610 109. Tambaram. [Pan:Aimpr1914L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 489 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons In Support Of An Affidavit. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, I Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which 2

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT

Section 10Section 17(3)Section 89

Sudhir Appukuttan Panikassery, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 3, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 3558/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Parag VyasFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)

Section 115JSection 139Section 139(1)Section 140ASection 140B(4)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234FSection 250Section 89