https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783957 Reopening was held invalid because the AO assumed jurisdiction on the basis of non-application of mind, placing excessive reliance on a SEBI inquiry period unrelated to the assessee's later sale transactions and without identifying any nexus between the assessee and any alleged tainted trader; consequently, the reassessment was quashed. On merits, the alleged bogus LTCG and consequent addition as unexplained cash credit under s. 68 failed because, although documents alone were not conclusive, surrounding circumstances showed the purchase arose post-amalgamation and post-revocation context, and the AO's inferences were not supported by specific adverse material; accordingly, the s. 68 addition was deleted and the appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 26 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783957 Reopening was held invalid because the AO assumed jurisdiction on the basis of non-application of mind, placing excessive reliance on a SEBI inquiry period unrelated to the assessee's later sale transactions and without identifying any nexus between the assessee and any alleged tainted trader; consequently, the reassessment was quashed. On merits, the alleged bogus LTCG and consequent addition as unexplained cash credit under s. 68 failed because, although documents alone were not conclusive, surrounding circumstances showed the purchase arose post-amalgamation and post-revocation context, and the AO's inferences were not supported by specific adverse material; accordingly, the s. 68 addition was deleted and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 26 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783957