<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Section 151 Sanction Quashed; Reassessment Set Aside as No Income Escaped and Reasons Unsupported Against Petitioner</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94271</link>
    <description>HC set aside the reassessment proceedings and quashed the sanction under section 151 insofar as they pertain to the Petitioner, holding that no income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The court found the asserted &quot;reasons to believe&quot; unsupported by cogent material: the investigation report did not list the Petitioner as a beneficiary of accommodation entries and the contested transactions were sales proceeds already offered to tax. The reasons recorded misidentified another assessee and, together with uncorrected supervisory review, demonstrated a mechanical, non-application of mind in granting sanction. Consequently, reopening was held invalid and the Petitioner succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2025 08:42:58 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2025 08:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=865324" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Section 151 Sanction Quashed; Reassessment Set Aside as No Income Escaped and Reasons Unsupported Against Petitioner</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94271</link>
      <description>HC set aside the reassessment proceedings and quashed the sanction under section 151 insofar as they pertain to the Petitioner, holding that no income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The court found the asserted &quot;reasons to believe&quot; unsupported by cogent material: the investigation report did not list the Petitioner as a beneficiary of accommodation entries and the contested transactions were sales proceeds already offered to tax. The reasons recorded misidentified another assessee and, together with uncorrected supervisory review, demonstrated a mechanical, non-application of mind in granting sanction. Consequently, reopening was held invalid and the Petitioner succeeded.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2025 08:42:58 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94271</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>