“borrowed satisfaction”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 1471,326 judgments

The decision most relied on for borrowed satisfaction is PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (395 ITR 677), cited in 471 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on borrowed satisfaction

PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.

395 ITR 677 · 2017 · High Court

471

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated solely based on an investigation wing/appraisal report, without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, are beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio.

394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel v. ITO

338 ITR 51 · 2011 · High Court

295

citing judgments

Reasons for reopening an assessment must be specific and not vague, scanty, or based on borrowed satisfaction. The Assessing Officer must quantify the escaped income.

222 Taxman 15 (Gujarat)(MAG.), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. G & G Pharma India Ltd.

384 ITR 147 · 2016 · High Court

274

citing judgments

An assessment can be reopened if there is tangible material indicating escapement of income, demonstrating a live link between the material and the reasons recorded for reopening. The Assessing Officer must apply their mind to the material facts, and the sanction under section 151 should not be based on borrowed satisfaction.

CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd.

325 ITR 285 · 2010 · High Court

243

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid and void ab initio if initiated based on 'borrowed satisfaction' without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind, or merely on documents already available on record without fresh tangible material.

Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

329 ITR 110 · 2010 · High Court

217

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid if the Assessing Officer records satisfaction based on borrowed satisfaction or information without independently applying their mind and forming their own 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment. The AO must arrive at an independent conclusion, not merely act on a report from an investigation wing without due diligence.

ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (P.) Ltd.

217 ITR 597 · 1996 · Supreme Court

180

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer's belief that income has escaped assessment, leading to the reopening of an assessment, is a matter of subjective satisfaction. The materials available at the time of forming this belief do not need to conclusively prove the escapement of income.

CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd.

345 ITR 223 · 2012 · High Court

164

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid if the sanction required under Section 151 is obtained mechanically, without independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority, or is based on borrowed satisfaction.

CIT v. Atul Jain

299 ITR 383 · 2008 · High Court

147

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under section 147 are not valid if the information relied upon by the Assessing Officer is vague, scanty, and lacks specific details linking it to the assessee's transactions.

Judgments citing borrowed satisfaction

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Trichy, Income Tax Office vs. Karuppanna Gounder Palaniappa Gounder Mariappan, Karur

ITA 1631/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1628/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -2, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Maragathamani Shanmugam, Vs. 54A, Muthu Nagar, Sengunthapuram, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Abkps-2816-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1629/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -2, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Ramasamy Moolimangalam Vs. Vaishnava Priya, 33, B7 Adhisri Apartments, Kothari Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. [Pan:Adwpv-0050-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1631/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -1, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Karuppanna Gounder Palaniappa Vs. Gounder Mariappan, No.1, 80 Feet Road, Sengunthapuram, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Agppm-2363-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69

debarred from issuing a notice under the Fourth Proviso unless these conditions are proved to exist. Such a satisfaction cannot be a borrowed satisfaction, but should be that of the AO himself. He can take the aid of reports and other official correspondence in arriving at the conclusion that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy, Income Tax Office vs. Life Line Auto Finance, Karur

ITA 1630/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1630/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle-2, Trichy. Vs. Life Line Auto Finance, 306-B1, First Floor, Bharathi Nagar, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Karur - 639 002. [Pan:Aaefl-7071-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.03.2015 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”] U/S.143(3) R.W.S 153C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year 2013–14. :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

Section 101Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 292C(1)Section 34Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy, Income Tax Office vs. Ramasamy Moolimangalam Vaishnava Priya, Chennai

ITA 1629/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69

:-2-: ITA. Nos. 1628, 1629 & 1631/Chny/2025 आदेश /ORDER PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM: These three appeals filed by the Revenue

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy, Income Tax Office vs. Maragathamani Shanmugam, Karur

ITA 1628/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1628/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -2, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Maragathamani Shanmugam, Vs. 54A, Muthu Nagar, Sengunthapuram, Karur – 639 002. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan:Abkps-2816-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1629/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -2, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ramasamy Moolimangalam Vs. Vaishnava Priya, 33, B7 Adhisri Apartments, Kothari Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan:Adwpv-0050-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1631/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -1, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Karuppanna Gounder Palaniappa Vs. Gounder Mariappan, No.1, 80 Feet Road, Sengunthapuram, Karur – 639 002. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan:Agppm-2363-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. 11.11.2025 20.01.2026 :-2-:

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69

Niraj Pravinchandra Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4415/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Niraj Pravinchandra Doshi Ito,Ward-19(2)(4), Mumbai Gr. Floor, Shreeji Kripa Building, Vs Room No. 609, Piramal 9, Kumbhar Tukda, Bhuleshwar, Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400004. Maharashtra – 400012. [Pan No. Aabpd1392D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254(1)

erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in initiating the reassessment proceedings under section 147 merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and without any tangible material. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (Appeals), Addl/ JCIT

Maharashtra Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4146/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69C

circumstances of the case and in law, the reopening of the assessment and the assessment as completed is illegal, invalid, without jurisdiction, on borrowed satisfaction, without independent application of mind, violative of the principal of natural justice and which deserves to be quashed as per law and in the interest

Tushar Vipinchandra Shukla, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1654/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148ASection 151Section 80G

order under section 147 has been issued by mechanically adopting the findings of the Investigation Wing without independent enquiry or analysis, thereby acting on "borrowed satisfaction," which is impermissible in law. I.T.A No. 1654/Ahd/2025 Tushar Vipinchandra Shukla, A.Y. 2019-20 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... making the impugned addition. 9. The Ld. CIT(A), thus, grossly erred in not appreciating that the additions were made on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, without any corroborative evidence to establish that the donations made by the appellant were accommodation entries. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter

Sudheer Chirania, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 23(3)(7), Mumbai

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

ITA 5263/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan & Mr. RaviFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

first appellant authority thus rendering such finding not only perverse but leading to the unassailable inference that the reopening is solely based on borrowed satisfaction. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the reassessment

Anil Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-26, Jhandewalan, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

assessee submits that AO has recorded satisfaction in mechanical manner and no independent application of mind as he has acted on the borrowed satisfaction. He drew our attention to the copy of reasons recorded which are available at Pages 24 & 25 of the PB wherein at Column

Late Shri Duleechanda Through Legal Representative Shri Rajendra Chaudhary, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1353/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sahil Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 120Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250

quashed. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the "reasons to believe" is vague, arbitrary, being based upon borrowed satisfaction, thereby vitiating the income escaping assessment proceedings.” 4. In addition to the above grounds, the assessee has also filed an additional legal ground

Horizon Buildmart Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Faridabad

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

ITA 1250/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalhorizon Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Cit, C-131, Ground Floor, Block-C, Central Circle-Ii, Sushant Shopping Arcade, Vs. Faridabad, Sushant Lok-1, Haryana-121001. Gurgaon-122002. Pan-Aacch4582P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri S.S. Nagar, Ca Assessee By Department By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short) Dated 27.01.2025 In Appeal No.10581/Cit(A) Ggn-3/2018-19 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Dated 28.12.2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2011 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.54,833/-. The Ao Had Information That Assessee Received Loan Horizon Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

that the reasons to believe recorded by the Ld. AO for the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act was based on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind. 6.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1561/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

taxable income, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the same. 2.2. The assessment having been reopened by the AO on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, the CIT(A) erred in failing to quash the reopening. 2.3. The AO having reopened the assessment on the basis of material already on record

Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1312/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai vs. DCIT, Cent. Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1311/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

DCIT, Chennai vs. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1274/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

Ashish N. Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 41(4)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 6713/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarashish N. Gupta Vs. Ito, Ward 41(4)(1) 1501, Anmol Enclave Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc S.V Road, Goregoan, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 062. Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aazpg7658K (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

received by his office from Dy. Director (Inv.) Unit- 6(2), Mumbai without understanding the provisions of section 147 that the same was only borrowed satisfaction withing the meaning of section 147. The Ld. A.O. has not made any independent inquiry before issuing the notice

Nikita Kapoor, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-54(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3875/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Vs Nikita Kapoor, Ito, Nfac, Delhi / C/O Raj Kumar & Ito, Ward 54(1), Associates, New Delhi L-7A (Lgf) South Extension, Parti-Ii, New Delhi – 110 049 Pan: Cgbpk7762C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 47Section 68Section 69C

asst. order Dtd.29.03.22. 3. That under the facts and circumstances, the initiation of reasstt. Proceedings u/s. 147/148, being mechanical, initiated on wrong facts on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind etc. is unsustainable in law as well as on merits. 4. That approval u/s. 151 being mechanical, without application ... mind and on borrowed satisfaction etc. hence not valid for initiation of reasstt. proceedings. 5. That in the absence of disposing of all the objections against initiation of reasstt. proceedings, as required in law, the impugned asstt. needs to be quashed. 6. That under the facts and circumstances, disallowance

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Al-Arsh Exports Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 227/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year:2014-15] Acit, Central Circle, Al-Arsh Exports Pvt Ltd., Room No.229, 2Nd Floor, 30, Bazar Lane, Cgo Complex-1, Vs C.P. Bengali Market, Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad, New Delhi-110001 Uttar Pradesh-201002 Pan Aalca5543N Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.14/Del/2024 [In Ita No.227/Del/2024] [Assessment Year:2014-15] Al-Arsh Exports Pvt Ltd., Acit, Central Circle, Room No.229, 2Nd Floor, 30, Bazar Lane, C.P. Bengali Market, Vs Cgo Complex-1, New Delhi-110001 Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201002 Pan Aalca5543N Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha, Cit(Dr) Assessee By Shri Swaran Singh, Ca & Shri Vipan Kundra, Ca Date Of Hearing 15.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.01.2026

Section 120(4)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 68

dismissing the following legal grounds taken before him: i) That the Ld. A.O. has recorded vague reasons without conducting any independent enquiry and on borrowed satisfaction, therefore, the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal and liable to be quashed. ii That

S K Hisaria HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward 5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1929/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaita Nos. 1928 & 1929/Ahd/2025 Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 270ASection 271ASection 68

basis of information received on insight portal without application of mind. The A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has only taken a borrowed satisfaction which is also not permissible under the Income Tax Act. On merit as well, the ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has given

Sk Hisaria HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward 5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1928/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaita Nos. 1928 & 1929/Ahd/2025 Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 270ASection 271ASection 68