https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784039 Reopening was challenged as based on "borrowed satisfaction" and absence of independent "reasons to believe" that the assessee had obtained bogus LTCG. The ITAT held that the AO relied solely on INSIGHT portal inputs without further enquiry or corroborative material, failed to identify any adverse facts about the accepted purchase transactions, and incorrectly invoked a SEBI order relating to an earlier enquiry period, whereas the assessee's sales occurred later on a recognised stock exchange through a SEBI-registered broker with STT paid; this showed non-application of mind in recording reasons. The reopening was therefore quashed and the assessee's appeal allowed. en-us Wed, 17 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Dec 2025 08:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784039 Reopening was challenged as based on "borrowed satisfaction" and absence of independent "reasons to believe" that the assessee had obtained bogus LTCG. The ITAT held that the AO relied solely on INSIGHT portal inputs without further enquiry or corroborative material, failed to identify any adverse facts about the accepted purchase transactions, and incorrectly invoked a SEBI order relating to an earlier enquiry period, whereas the assessee's sales occurred later on a recognised stock exchange through a SEBI-registered broker with STT paid; this showed non-application of mind in recording reasons. The reopening was therefore quashed and the assessee's appeal allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 17 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784039