How many judgments cite CIT v. Toyota Motor Corporation?

29 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Toyota Motor Corporation (306 ITR 49), spanning 2016 to 2025.

CIT v. Toyota Motor Corporation

306 ITR 49High Court2008#4081 most cited

What is CIT v. Toyota Motor Corporation authority for?

Where circumstances in a case provoke an enquiry, the Assessing Officer (AO) cannot remain passive. If the Tribunal substitutes its own reasons for those required by the AO, it should remand the matter back to the AO.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Toyota Motor Corporation · section 263 · lack of enquiry · AO duty · circumstances provoking enquiry · Tribunal substitution of reasons · remand to AO · non-application of mind · erroneous and prejudicial

Issues it is cited on

section 263(1)lack of enquiry malabar industrial non-application of mind erroneous and prejudicial section 263 regular assessment speaking order section 26 genuineness of the transaction previous year section 139

Judgments citing CIT v. Toyota Motor Corporation

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)2 vs. DELHI GURGAON SUPER CONNECTIVITY LTD. & ANR.

The appeal is allowed in favour of the

ITA/424/2022HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

For Appellant: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC with Mr. SanjeevFor Respondent: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal and

Section 141(2)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 156Section 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274Section 276D

…s because such an inquiry has not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct.‖ (Emphasis added) 32. In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Toyota Motor Corporation: (2008) 306 ITR 49, the assessing officer had passed an order dropping the penalty proceedings initiated in the assessee's Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:22.05.2025 18:12:31 Signature Not Verified ITA 424/2022 Page 22 of 35…

M/S.APPOLLO TYRES LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE PR CIT, , KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 72/COCH/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Sri.Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 32A

…face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further enquiry. It is his duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an enquiry. In CIT v. Toyota Motor Corporation[2008] 306 ITR 49 (Del), since 3 | P a g e Apollo Tyres Limited v. Pr. CIT confirmed in the decision reported at [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC), it was explained that the Tribunal could not have substituted it’s own reasons which were required to be recorded by the AO, and ought to have remanded the matter to the latter. 5.2 Section 32AC of the Act, applicability of which…

PALLATHUKADAVIL IBRAHIMKUTTY ABDUL KABEER,ERNAKULAM vs. THE PCIT KOCHI-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the above terms, and his SA dismissed

ITA 428/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicialmember & Sa No. 78/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pallathukadavil Ibrahimkutty Principal Cit – 1 Abdul Kabeer C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road 71, Pallathukadavil Vs. Kochi 682018 Kanjoor P.O., Ernakulam 682575 [Pan: Aaopi0584P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Padmanathan K.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54B

…duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an enquiry. In Toyota Motor Corporation v. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC), confirming the decision by the Hon'ble High Court reported at [2008] 306 ITR 49 (Del), it was explained that the Tribunal could not have substituted it’s own reasons which were required to be recorded by the AO, and ought to have remanded the matter to the latter. Sure, there must thus be circumstances which would make the enquiry prudent, and not de hors the same, even as explained in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR…

JAMESON ABRAHAM,KOLLAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 979/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasjameson Abraham Principal Commissioner Emmanuel Cashes Industries Of Income Tax Chepara P.O., Kottarakara Vs. Thiruvananthuparam Kollam 691520 [Pan: Afopa7312Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…y. The scope of inquiry would, as explained in Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (supra), include that w.r.t. the applicable provision/s of law. In Toyota Motor Corporation v. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC), confirming the decision by the Hon'ble High Court reported at [2008] 306 ITR 49 (Del), it was explained that the Tribunal could not have substituted it’s own reasons which were required to be recorded by the AO, and ought to have remanded the matter to the latter. 5.2 There is, in the facts of the case, patently, a clear lack of application of mind by the assessing authority. The initial enquiry, incumbent on him considering…

M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD,KOCHI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 654/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dascochin Shipyard Ltd. Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle 1(1) Administrative Building C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Shipyard Premises Kochi 682018 Vs. Perumanoor P.O. Kochi 682015 [Pan:Aaacc6905B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh L. Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

…face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further enquiry. It is his duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an enquiry. In CIT v. Toyota Motor Corporation[2008] 306 ITR 49 (Del), since confirmed in the decision reported at [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC), it was explained that the Tribunal could not have substituted it’s own reasons which were required to be recorded by the AO, and ought to have remanded the matter to the latter. 3.2 As afore-noted, we observe a complete absence of any enquiry, much less followed by due exa…

KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 628/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daskerala State Financial Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) & Tps Enterprises Ltd. Thrissur Bhadratha, Museum Road Vs. Chembukkavu - 680020 Thrissur [Pan:Aabct3817A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harikrishnanunny, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 40

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 140/COCH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt

Section 147

…on merits, converting itself into a court of first instance), as well as generally, disapproved such a course being adopted, being no more than a usurpation of power. Reference in this context may also be made, inter alia, to CIT vs. Toyota Motor Corp. [2008] 306 ITR 49 (Del) [affirmed in [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC)]. 6.7 The next decision relied upon is by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for AY 2012-13 (at APB pgs. 16-46/DPB pgs. 3-33). In the facts of the case Form 3CL (dated 28.10.2016) was filed by the assessee at the stage of the proceedings before the DRP and, in any case, on 17.5.2017, in rectification…

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 139/COCH/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt

Section 147

V GUARD INDUSTRIES LIMITED,VENNALA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 63/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainv-Guard Industries Ltd. Principal Cit-1, 42/962, Vennala High School C R Building, I S Press Road, Vs. Road, Vennala, Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682028 [Pan: Aaacv5492Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prashant V.K., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 28/12/2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (‘Pr. Cit’ For Short) Vide Order U/S. 263 Dated 22/03/2021. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 08/03/2022, Though Delayed By 256 Days, Was Admitted In View Of The Blanket Condonation By The Apex Court In Suo Motu Wp(C) No.3/2020, Dated 10/01/2022, Excluding The Period From 15/3/2020 To 28/02/2022 In Reckoning The Delay In Computing Limitation Under Law & The Hearing Accordingly Proceeded With. The Assessee Is A Company Manufacturing Electrical Cables, Pumps, Solar Water Heaters, Etc. & Trading In Electrical & Electronic Goods. Revision Of It’S Impugned Assessment Is On Several Issues On Which The Revisionary Authority Found An Absence Or Lack Of Enquiry By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an enquiry. In Toyota Motor Corporation v. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC), confirming the decision by the Hon'ble High Court reported at [2008] 306 ITR 49 (Del), it was explained that the Tribunal could not 8 M/s. Kunnummakkara Service/Income Tax Officer, W(2)(2) have substituted it’s own reasons which were required to be recorded by the AO, and ought to have remanded the matter to the latter. Sure, there must thus be circumstances which would make the enquiry prudent, and not de hors the same, even…

M/S ANU CASHEWS,KOLLAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 700/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 The Assistant M/S. Anu Cashews, Commissioner Of Parameswar Nagar, Income Tax, Kollam. Circle – 1, Pan: Aadfa7642K Vs. Kollam. Appellant Respondent : Shri G. Surendranath Rao, Assessee By Ca : Smt J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. Revenue By Ar Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 10/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Pcit, Thiruvananthapuram U/S. 263 Of The Act On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Against Law & Facts. 2. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Concluding That The Ao Had Completed The Assessment Without Verification & Application Of Mind. During The Original Assessment Proceedings The Ao Had Sought All Information On The Deduction Claimed Under Chapter Via. He Had Issued A Notice U/S 142(1) Dated 23.05.2017, In Which Inter Alia He Had Called For Reconciliation Of The Large Deduction Claimed U/S 80(Ia) With The Books Of Account

For Respondent: Shri G. Surendranath Rao

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…lication of law or 3. without due application of mind or 4. without following the principles of natural justice would be 'erroneous' [CIT Vs. Jawahar Bhatacharjee (2012) 341 ITR 434 (Gau.)(FB)] II. The Honorable High Court of Delhi in Toyoto Motor Corporation 306 ITR 49 had given a finding that "The order Page 7 of 11 passed by the Assessing Officer should be a self-contained order giving the relevant facts and reasons for coming to the conclusion based on those facts and law." Absence of examination of records by the Assessing Officer in conjunction with the issue discussed above renders the impugned order erro…

M/S. HEERA KERALA DEVELOPERS P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 243/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Heera Kerala Developers Acit - Circle 1(1) Pvt. Ltd. Thiruvananthapurm Tc 15/1553(5), Heera Park Vs. Mp Appan Road, Vazhuthacaud Thiruvananthapurm 695014 Pan – Aabch8810R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Raja Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 68o

…cation of law or C. without due application of mind or D. without following the principles of natural justice would be 'erroneous' [CIT Vs. Jawahar Bhatacharjee (2012) 341 ITR 434 (Gau.)(FB)) II. The Honorable High Court of Delhi in Toyoto Motor Corporation 306 ITR 49 had given a finding that "The order passed by the Assessing Officer should be a self- contained order giving the relevant facts and reasons for coming to the conclusion based on those facts and law." Incorrect application of law / and section has made the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 29.12.2016 erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue and I t…

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)

…and not to any incidental connection. Related question arises: can a AO pass an order without giving any proper reasons whatsoever? The 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.…

SHRI NITIN SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 25/JAB/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 153DSection 263Section 7(1)

…Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC)). The case law in the matter is legion, with Hon’ble Courts all through, including the Apex Court (as in Toyota Motor Corp. v. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC), affirming the decision by the High Court reported at [2008] 306 ITR 49 (Del), and the Hon'ble jurisdiction High Court (as in CIT vs. Deepak K. Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT v. Mahavar Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP)), holding like-wise in different fact settings. Reference, however, is being made only to the decision in Gee Vee Enterprises v. CIT (Addl.) [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del), wherein reliance has been placed o…

M/S K R CONSTRUCTION ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CENTRAL-3, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7615/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathak.R.Construction Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Basement, Hinal Residency Income Tax-Central-3 19Th Floor Datta Mandir Road Dahanukar Wadi Air India Building Kandivali(W) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 021

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER K.R.Construction Vs. Principal Commissioner of Basement, Hinal Residency Income Tax-Central-3 19th Floor Datta Mandir Road Dahanukar Wadi Air India Building Kandivali(W) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 021 PAN/GIR No.AANFK0144N Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue by Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT-DR Assessee by Shri Naresh Jain, AR Date of Hearing 11/02/2020 Date of Pronouncement 28/02/2020 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER G.MANJUNATHA (A.M): This appeal filed by the…

PRABHA GARG,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD -2(5), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 153/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.D. Jayanthi Angayarkanni, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन,"याियक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.153/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Prabha Garg, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.22, Sivasailam Street, Non Corporate Ward – 2(5), T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai. PAN: AACPG 4474C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri G.D. Jay…

M/S.KOLLAM ROYAL PARK HOTEL & RESORTS P> LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 268/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. No. 268/Coch/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Kollam Royal Park Hotel & Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Resort Pvt. Ltd., Income-tax, Circle-1, Kollam. Ward No. XV, Door No. 224, Mathilil P.O., Kollam. [PAN:AADCK 8403D] (Assessee- Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajeev R., CA Revenue by Shri Shantham Bose, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 05/11/2019 Date of pronouncement 13/11/2019 O R D E R Per GEORGE GEORGE K. JM: This appeal filed at the instance of the assesse…

DR.BALACHANDRAN NAIR M,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 147/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 263

…to interests of revenue. The PCIT relied on the judgments I.T.A. Nos. 147-150/Coch/2019 of the Gauhati High Court in the case of CITVs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (2012) 341 ITR 434 (Gau.)(FB) and the High Court of Delhi in the case of Toyoto Motor Corporation 306 ITR 49 wherein it was held that “The order passed by the Assessing Officer should be a self-contained order giving the relevant facts and reasons for coming to the conclusion based on those facts and law." Thus, the PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to the Assessing Officer to verify, re- quantify and tax the interest amounts accrued…

SOWMYA SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1335/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1335/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Smt. Sowmya Srikanth, Vs The Income Tax Officer, No.34/8, Sadhullah Street, Non Corporate Ward 2(1), T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai. Pan: Aegps0056Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr.S. Pandian, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.S. Pandian, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54(2)

…tice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The “inscrutable face of a sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Toyota Motor Corporation in 306 ITR 49 held that “There is no doubt that the proceedings before the AO are quasi judicial proceedings and a decision taken by the AO in this regard must be supported by reasons. Otherwise, every order, such as the one passed by the AO, could result in a theoretical possibility that it may be revised by the CIT under Section 263 of the Act. Such a situati…

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES M&M) CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assesse as well as the Stay Petition

ITA 537/COCH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3(1)Section 40

…' 2. CIT Vs. Emery Stone Manufacturing Co.(1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) wherein it was stated that failure to apply the correct provision of law as may be applicable in given facts of the case will be resulting in an erroneous order. 3. Toyoto Motor Corporation (306 ITR 49) wherein it had given a finding that "The order passed by the Assessing Officer should be a self-contained order giving the relevant facts and reasons for coming to the conclusion based on those facts and law." 2.5 After considering all aspects, the CIT found that the assessment was completed without due verification and application of mind in th…

M/S.KERALA STATE BEVERAGES(M&M) CORPORATION LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assesse as well as the Stay Petition

ITA 536/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3(1)Section 40

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2