https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469452 Reassessment based on survey material was held bad in law where the recorded reasons were materially mistaken, the assessee had already been scrutinised, and no direct material linked the assessee to any sham mutual fund transaction or knowing participation in manipulation. The reopening therefore failed. The exempt dividend claim was also upheld because the investment and receipt were supported by banking records, the fund house confirmed compliance in dividend declaration, and allegations against the fund house alone could not justify denial of exemption absent evidence against the assessee. The consequential addition was deleted and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jun 2026 10:30:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469452 Reassessment based on survey material was held bad in law where the recorded reasons were materially mistaken, the assessee had already been scrutinised, and no direct material linked the assessee to any sham mutual fund transaction or knowing participation in manipulation. The reopening therefore failed. The exempt dividend claim was also upheld because the investment and receipt were supported by banking records, the fund house confirmed compliance in dividend declaration, and allegations against the fund house alone could not justify denial of exemption absent evidence against the assessee. The consequential addition was deleted and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469452