TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
The High Court held that reopening of assessment u/s 147 was not valid where the Assessing Officer had previously examined the claim for deduction of foreign exchange loss during regular scrutiny assessment and had allowed the deduction after considering the assessee's explanation. The Court ruled that in the absence of any new tangible material, the Assessing Officer could not assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment merely on a change of opinion. If the Assessing Officer had made any legal error in the original assessment, the succeeding officer cannot correct such error through reopening. The reasons recorded clearly reflect an attempt to correct the earlier opinion, which cannot be the basis for reopening an assessment framed after scrutiny. The decision was in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that reopening of assessment u/s 147 was not valid where the Assessing Officer had previously examined the claim for deduction of foreign exchange loss during regular scrutiny assessment and had allowed the deduction after considering the assessee's explanation. The Court ruled that in the absence of any new tangible material, the Assessing Officer could not assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment merely on a change of opinion. If the Assessing Officer had made any legal error in the original assessment, the succeeding officer cannot correct such error through reopening. The reasons recorded clearly reflect an attempt to correct the earlier opinion, which cannot be the basis for reopening an assessment framed after scrutiny. The decision was in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
