TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether deduction under section 80HHC could be computed without reducing the deduction under section 80IB/80IA. (ii) Whether the reassessment proceedings under sections 147 and 148 for the relevant assessment years were valid. (iii) Whether the disallowance of commission required fresh adjudication.
Issue (i): Whether deduction under section 80HHC could be computed without reducing the deduction under section 80IB/80IA.
Analysis: The issue was held to be covered by the Special Bench decision which ruled that deduction allowable under other provisions of Chapter VI-A under the head 'C' must be reduced by the amount of deduction allowed under section 80IB/80IA. The Tribunal followed that binding view and directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to it.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of Revenue and against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment proceedings under sections 147 and 148 for the relevant assessment years were valid.
Analysis: No new facts or information had come to light after the original assessments under section 143(3). The reassessment was founded only on a fresh view of the same material, which amounted to a change of opinion. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that section 147 cannot be used to review an assessment or reopen it merely because the Assessing Officer later forms a different opinion on the same record.
Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were held invalid and the reassessment orders were quashed in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iii): Whether the disallowance of commission required fresh adjudication.
Analysis: The Tribunal found that the matter required reconsideration on the basis of the material already furnished and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the claim after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
Conclusion: The commission disallowance was remitted for fresh adjudication.
Final Conclusion: The decision granted relief to both sides in part: the revenue succeeded on the deduction-computation issue for one year, while the assessee succeeded on the reopening issue for the other years, and the commission issue was sent back for reconsideration.
Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment cannot be sustained when it is based only on a change of opinion on the same material already considered in an assessment under section 143(3), and deductions under Chapter VI-A falling under the relevant head must be adjusted in the manner mandated by the binding precedent applied by the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
