Section 89(1) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.157

Section 89(1) falls under section 89 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which 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.

34 judgments on BharatTax turn on Section 89(1).

Judgments on Section 89(1)

Vaishali Baban Bhosale, Pune vs. The ITO Ward 10(1), Pune

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

ITA 2067/PUN/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Aug 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu ChoudharyFor Respondent: Shri Avinash Karpe

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 89Section 89(1)

Shri Venkataraman Krishnan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp. Circle-19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2652/CHNY/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sudarshan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chakraborthy, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 89(1)

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Kashipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kashipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/DDN/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Jul 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Sehgal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 274(1)Section 89(1)

Tanaji Baburao Bhosale, Pune vs. ITO Ward 10(1), Pune

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

ITA 1784/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare, ARFor Respondent: Shri.Chaitanya P. Medshikar

Section 142(1)Section 89(1)

Valangaiman Radhananda Kishore Venkataraman, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncc-3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in view above observations and legal discussions

ITA 4099/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Honourable George George K. & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 4099/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Valangaiman Radhananda Kishore V. Income Tax Officer, Venkataraman, Non-Corporate Circle-3(1), No.40B (Old No.109B), Nanda Vihar, Chennai. Abhiramapuram 4Th Street, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. [Pan: Aagpv1873J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. R. Chandrasekaran, C.A, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Biplab Gangopadhyay, Jcit Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl. / Jcit (A)-5, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Addl. / Jcit (A)-5), Dated 31.10.2025 For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2017-18. Grounds Of Appeal In Response To The Show Cause Notice Dated 05 November 2019, The Assessee, Valangaiman Radhananda Kishore Venkataraman, Had Diligently Filed His Reply In Time On 14Th November 2019 Vide E-Proceedings Response Acknowledgement Number 14111912115150 Dated 14Th November 2019. However, The Assessing Officer Has Disallowed The Claim Of Relief U/S 89(1) Contending That No Reply Has Been Received Till The Date Of Her Passing Order No. Itba/Ast/S/143(3)2019-20/1020501169(1) Dated 15Th November 2019. It Is Therefore Evident That The Assessing Officer Has Ignored To Take Cognizance Of The Reply Filed In Time In Response To Her Valangaiman Radhananda Kishore Venkataraman. Show Cause Notice. Thus, The Said Order Has Been Passed In Haste Without Considering The Material Facts Submitted In His Reply & Hence The Same Is Bad In Law & Needs To Be Set Aside.

For Appellant: Mr. R. Chandrasekaran, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Biplab Gangopadhyay, JCIT

Section 17Section 17(1)Section 17(3)Section 89(1)

Sunil Sahadu Kasar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Office, Nashik

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

ITA 1187/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1187/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Sunil Sahadu Kasar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Manas Residency, Nashik Gut -70, Satara Parisar, S.O. Satara, Aurangabad – 431010 Maharashtra Pan : Buwpk9227N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Ambarnath Khule

Section 10Section 147Section 89(1)

Abdus Sukur Ahmed, Dhubri vs. ITO, Ward - Dhubri, Dhubri

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

ITA 358/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shriduvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Respondent: Shri S.P. Bhati, AR

Section 89(1)

Anil Bhagwan Turuk, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2585/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2584 & 2585/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Anil Bhagwan Turuk, V Income Tax Officer, 431/2329, Sant Tukaram S Ward-8(3), Pune. Nagar, Pimpri, Haveli, Pune – 411018. Pan: Aappt2146K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2020-21 Dated 23.07.2025 & 28.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 13.09.2022 & Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 22.03.2023 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience

Section 10Section 10(10)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 89(1)

Anil Bhagwan Turuk, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2584/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Section 10Section 10(10)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 89(1)

Sachin Bhaskar Kurandale, Pune vs. ITO, Wrd-13(2), Pune

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

ITA 1249/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1249/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sachin Bhaskar Kurandale, Vs. Ito, Ward-13(2), Pune. A/P Annapur, Tal- Shirur, Dist.- Pune- 412218. Pan : Bchpk8331E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.04.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Denying The Relief U/S 89(1) Amounting To Rs. 1,56,662/-.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari (Virtual)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 89Section 89(1)

Krishana Shanwal, Hisar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 410/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmankrishana Shanwal, Vs. Dcit, Hisar Circle, House No.155, Sector 15A, Hisar. Hisar – 125 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Btops9929Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kuldip Khera, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Order : 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Addl./Jcit (A), Agra [“Ld. Jcit(A)”, For Short] Dated 30.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 21.08.2017 Declaring An Income Of Rs.52,49,050/- For The Ay 2017-18. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass For The Following Issues :-

For Appellant: Shri Kuldip Khera, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270ASection 56Section 57Section 89Section 89(1)

Subramanian Kathirsen, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Aurangabad

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

ITA 765/CHNY/2025[19-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Sept 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.765/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 56(2)(xi)Section 89Section 89(1)

Kailash Narayan Shridhar, Vadodara vs. Deputy CIT Circle 4(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 979/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth Desai, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 89(1)

Sabbirahmed Basirahmed Shaikh, Dabhoi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1)(7), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 205/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2021-22 Sabbirahmed Basirahmed Shaikh Ito, Ward-4(1)(7) 5-Jantanagar Society Vs. Vadodara. O/S.Mahudi Bhagol At & Post Dabhoi Pan : Agtps 9809 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Bhupendra C. Mehta, Advocate Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh Sr.DR

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 89(1)

Kishorchandra Motilal Rajput, Bharuch vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 819/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra C. Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr DR

Section 10Section 10ASection 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 89(1)

Bijender Singh Dhankhar, Pinjore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Panchkula

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 222/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

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

The Mandi Urban Coop. Bank Ltd., Mandi vs. ITO, Ward, Mandi

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 627/CHANDI/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

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

The Mandi Urban Coop. Bank Ltd., Mandi vs. DCIT, Circle, Mandi

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 626/CHANDI/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

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

The Mandi Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Mandi vs. ACIT, Circle, Mandi

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1613/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

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

Balkrishna Devraj Dubey, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2876/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosainbalkrishna Devraj Dubey Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-42(2)(1), R No.307, B Wing, Jai Shiv Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Palace, Sneha Hospital Galli, Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- Navghar Road, Bhayander 400 051 East, Maharashtra-401 105 Pan : Aexpd7533C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, (SR. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 89(1)