Lehman Brothers Investments Pte.Ltd . vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
Reassessment based on different computational method applied to already examined transaction: impermissible change of opinion.
Result: Quashed / set aside. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: See packaged judgment
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Reassessment based on different computational method applied to already examined transaction: impermissible change of opinion.
- What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
- How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?
Material facts and procedural background
Lehman Brothers Investments Pte.Ltd. ] (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) ] C/o KPMG Advisory Services Pte Ltd. ] Hong Leong Bldg., 16 Raffles Quay#22-00, ] Singapore-999999. ] .. Petitioner v/s. 1) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ] (International Taxation), Circle-3(1)(2) ] Room no.1634, 16th floor ] Air India Building, Nariman Point ] Mumbai – 400 021. ]
… Mr. J. D. Mistri, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Divesh Chawla i/b. Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the petitioner.
. These two writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner for two
disposing of the objections raised by the petitioner.
3. The petitioner is an investment holding company incorporated in
Appellant / assessee submissions
submitted that the respondent had not complied with the jurisdictional
petitioner. He submitted that the order of the High Court on capital
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the TPO had
and held the same at Arm’s Length Price. He submitted that the
Revenue / respondent submissions
25. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no return
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
26. We have heard the learned counsel at length. We are of the view
Operative decision and relief
28. Be that as it may, we allow the petition and set aside the
29. Petition is disposed of. No orders as to costs.
Ratio and legal principle
- The packaged judgment addresses Reassessment based on different computational method applied to already examined transaction: impermissible change of opinion. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
- Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Why this judgment matters
This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with reassessment based on different computational method applied to already examined transaction: impermissible change of opinion. Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.
Practitioner action points
- Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
- Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
- Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | Tribunal |
|---|---|
| Source integrity | Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; official primary replacement pending |
| Repository release | HOLD_SOURCE_OR_LATER_HISTORY |
| Reliance rule | Verify current history and cite the judgment's narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote. |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- The same primary issue is raised.
- The same statutory version and jurisdiction apply.
- The procedural stage and burden of proof are comparable.
- The material documentary record is substantially similar.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later higher-court ruling changes the position.
- The statutory provision or relevant period differs.
- The evidence or procedural chronology is materially different.
- A defect decisive here was cured in the user's case.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Lehman Brothers Investments Pte.Ltd . vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax?
Reassessment based on different computational method applied to already examined transaction: impermissible change of opinion.
Which facts matter most?
Lehman Brothers Investments Pte.Ltd. ] (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) ] C/o KPMG Advisory Services Pte Ltd. ] Hong Leong Bldg., 16 Raffles Quay#22-00, ] Singapore-999999. ] .. Petitioner v/s. 1) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ] (International Taxation), Circle-3(1)(2) ] Room no.1634, 16th floor ] Air India Building, Nariman Point ] Mumbai – 400 021. ]
What did the Court / Tribunal to be verified decide?
29. Petition is disposed of. No orders as to costs.
What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?
The packaged judgment addresses Reassessment based on different computational method applied to already examined transaction: impermissible change of opinion. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions. Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Which provisions should be checked?
The exact provisions identified in the packaged judgment and their version applicable to the relevant period.
When is the case most useful?
When the user's facts raise the same issue - Reassessment based on different computational method applied to already examined transaction: impermissible change of opinion - at a comparable procedural stage and under the same statutory version.
What could distinguish the case?
Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.
Can it be cited without another current-law check?
No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate/review/SLP history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.
Section / provision impact
- See the statutory provisions identified in the packaged judgment.
Case network
Similar issue / useful comparison
- NITIN NEMA VS ITO WARD 1(1) JABALPUR & ORS - Madhya Pradesh High Court - Jabalpur
- Uttrakhand Poorv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. vs. ITO - ITAT Dehradun Circuit Bench
- Jindal Exports and Imports Private Limited vs. DCIT - Delhi High Court
Different outcome / possible distinction
- JM Financial Asset Management Ltd. v. DCIT - Allowed
- Stewart Science College,Cuttack Vs ITO Ward 1(1), Cuttack - Operative order controls
Full judgment and source control
Read / download packaged judgment record
Source class: SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING · Repository status: HOLD_SOURCE_OR_LATER_HISTORY
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.