https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405754 The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under Section 154 to rectify the assessment order, rejected the TNMM Method in favor of the CUP Method, and dismissed the appeal, answering all substantial questions of law against the appellant-assessee. The court found that the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and Tribunal had appropriately analyzed the issues and concluded in favor of the CUP Method, estopping the assessee from changing the method during assessment proceedings. Additionally, the court rejected the adjustment for quantity discount under Rule 10B(3) and upheld the remand of the trading segment issue to the CIT(A). en-us Fri, 19 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jul 2021 17:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405754 The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under Section 154 to rectify the assessment order, rejected the TNMM Method in favor of the CUP Method, and dismissed the appeal, answering all substantial questions of law against the appellant-assessee. The court found that the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and Tribunal had appropriately analyzed the issues and concluded in favor of the CUP Method, estopping the assessee from changing the method during assessment proceedings. Additionally, the court rejected the adjustment for quantity discount under Rule 10B(3) and upheld the remand of the trading segment issue to the CIT(A). Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 19 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405754