The assessee had opted for the new tax regime for A.Y. 2024-25 and subsequently filed Form No. 10-IEA on 31-08-2025 to opt out of the new tax regime and be taxed under the old tax regime for A.Y. 2025-26. However, while filing the return of income, the assessee inadvertently selected the option indicating that he did not wish to opt out of the new tax regime. The CPC processed the return under section 143(1), considered Form No. 10-IEA and raised a demand of Rs. 1,41,480, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal held that where a specific form is prescribed for exercising the option to opt out of the new tax regime, the assessee cannot choose the new regime contrary to the option exercised through the prescribed form merely by selecting a different option in the return of income. Accordingly, the assessee’s contention on this issue was rejected. The assessee’s challenge that the intimation under section 143(1) was issued without prior intimation was also rejected, as the assessee failed to furnish evidence from the Income-tax portal to establish that no prior intimation had been issued; the decision in Rallis India Ltd. v. Central Processing Centre was distinguished on facts. However, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s alternative plea that if the old tax regime was applicable on the basis of Form No. 10-IEA, the deductions allowable under that regime should also be considered. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside to this limited extent, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to examine and allow the eligible deductions under the old tax regime in accordance with law. The appeal was partly allowed. (A.Y. 2025-26) (ITA No. 5706/Mum/2026, dt. 17-09-2026)