What the courts have decided on section 80D, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
Sumit Maloo v ITO, Kishangarh
ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
The Assessing Officer has disallowed my whole Chapter VI-A block — 80C, 80D, 80G — and my HRA, saying I filed no documentary evidence. I did file it. What do I do?
The Jaipur Tribunal restored almost all of it, holding that where the assessee has actually placed the evidence on record the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) cannot disallow "arbitrarily" without discussing those documents. On s.80D in particular the Tribunal allowed Rs 50,000 of medical expenditure incurred on a dependent father who was a senior citizen suffering from Parkinson's, on the strength of a doctor's prescription, the father's Aadhaar showing his age, and bank entries evidencing the spend — with no insurance policy at all.
-
Manmohan Singh v ITO
ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
I filed my return under the new regime by default, then filed a revised return within time switching to the old regime and claiming my exemptions and Chapter VI-A deductions. The CPC has processed it under the new regime saying the regime cannot be changed in a revised return. Can it?
On this order, yes, for a salaried assessee with no business or professional income. The Tribunal held that a revised return filed in time under s.139(5) supersedes the original, that the proviso to s.115BAC(6) restricting the number of times the option may be exercised does not apply where there is no business or professional income, and that the filing of Form 10-IEA is procedural — the delay in filing it was condoned and the fact of filing it satisfied the requirement. The Assessing Officer was directed to process the revised return under the old regime with the exemptions and deductions claimed.
-
Abhishek Rajeshbhai Karia v ITO, Ahmedabad
ITATCuts both waysNo later treatment found
My s.148 reassessment started over a political donation but the Assessing Officer has disallowed my 80D and 80DDB for my parents' medical expenses as well. Are those safe?
On this order the s.80D claim of Rs 75,000 for health insurance premium and medical expenditure incurred for the assessee's parents was allowed outright, the Tribunal holding the disallowance unjustified because the expenditure was incurred for his parents and is deductible under s.80D. The s.80DDB claim of Rs 87,000 for a father diagnosed with cancer was NOT allowed: it went back to the Assessing Officer because eleven documents called for had never been produced either before him or before the CIT(A).
-
Mohamed Asmi v ITO
ITATHelps departmentNo later treatment found
I filed under s.44AD and the officer has still added my whole bank credit under s.69A. Doesn't the presumptive return protect me?
Not by itself. The Tribunal held that s.44AD and s.69A operate in distinct fields, and that a presumptive return cannot regularise deposits whose source and genuineness the assessee cannot establish; the entire addition of Rs 7,10,37,643 was sustained.
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.
