April 2,2008 2. Toyota Motor Corporation v. CIT

389 ITR 242High Court2016#20711 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

erroneous and prejudicial section 263 section 26 opportunity of being heard company section 14 section 143(3)india total income business document interest

Judgments citing April 2,2008 2. Toyota Motor Corporation v. CIT

Nahar Colours and Coatinhgs Private Limited, Udaipur vs. Principal Commissioner Ofincometax, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…to appreciate that in this case the inference drawn by the Commissioner was not based either on presumptions or surmises or suspicion. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the order of the Commissioner. (PCIT v. India Finance Ltd. (2016) 389 ITR 242: (2017) 81 taxmann.com 135 (Cal.)) 1.3. It is the order of the PCIT/CIT which is in challenge before the Hon'ble Tribunal. The appellant is required to show and prove the "reasons to interfere" with the order of the PCIT/CIT. It is not proven by the assesse that the opinion of the PCIT is based on either presumptions or surmises or suspicion. It…

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 13, Mumbai

ITA 3600/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 163Section 263Section 40

…elhi High Court in cases of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. ADCL (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi), DLF Commercial Developers Ltd., Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC), Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of India Finance Ltd. 389 ITR 242 and co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Kapil Mehta, Delhi vs. PCIT. 9. So far as first ground for invoking the revisionary jurisdiction by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 263 of the Act that the order passed by the AO by not disallowing Employee Welfare Cost 6 M/s. Play Games 24X7 Pvt. Ltd. towards ESOP being erroneous and prejudicial to…

M/S Surjeet Auto Agency, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT-2, Bhopal

ITA 189/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2015-16 M/S Surjeet Auto Agency, Pr. Cit-2, 4-5, Lajpat Nagar, Raisen Bhopal बनाम/ Road, Apsara Cinema, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aatfs 4110J Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Piush Parasar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 04.02.2020.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…issue stands settled by the Hon’ble S.C. Ld. Pr. CIT was relied following decisions: 1. CIT vs. Toyota Motor Corpn. (2008) 306 ITR 49(Delhi) dated April 2,2008 2. Toyota Motor Corporation vs. CIT (2008) 306 ITR 52(SC) 3. Pr. CIT vs. India Finance Ltd. (2016) 389 ITR 242(Calcutta) 4. State Bank of Indore v. CIT (1998) 64 ITD 209 (Indore) 5. S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India (1990) AIR 1984, 1990 Supl. (1) 44 DID, 28th August, 1990 6. Boston Analytics P. Ltd. Mumbai vs. ITO I.T.A.T. Mumbai B Bench ITANo.2745/Mum/2012 6. Based on the above, it is clear that, there is complete lack of enquiry on the part of the asse…

Aruna Baid, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 18, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2423/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Verma

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…iction to exercise power under section 263 of the Act to revise the assessment order. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) Toyota Motor Corporation v/s CIT, [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC); ii) PCIT v/s India Finance Ltd., [2016] 389 ITR 242 (Cal.); iii) Man Mohan Properties Ltd. v/s CIT, [2013] 152 ITD 606 (Mum.); and iv) Shore Line Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, ITA no.332/2016, dated 11.09.2018 (Bom.). 5. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. Though, in the show cause notice issued under section…