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#4027 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 366,339 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

Sh. Nittan Aneja, Sbs Nagar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, both the assessee’s appeal and the Revenue’s C

ITA 288/ASR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 288/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Joshi (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…9] 238 ITR 867 (Mad); CIT vs. Export House [2002] 256 ITR 603 (P&H); CIT vs. Arunaben Sumankumar [2003] 259 ITR 386 (Guj); Pt. Lashkari Ram vs. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 309 (All); CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT vs. Toyota Motor Corpn. [2008] 306 ITR 49 (Del) (affirmed by the apex court vide its judgment at [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC)), on some of which reliance stands placed by the ld. Pr. CIT as well (refer para 6, pgs. 12-13 of his order) (also refer: Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 343 (Ch)(SB)). 3.3 Lack of enquiry, it may be noted, is principally a matter of fact. That is, whether…

Lally Motors India Pvt. Ltd, Jalandhar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 218/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 218(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Sameer Bhatia (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D. R.)

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…9] 238 ITR 867 (Mad); CIT vs. Export House [2002] 256 ITR 603 (P&H); CIT vs. Arunaben Sumankumar [2003] 259 ITR 386 (Guj); Pt. Lashkari Ram vs. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 309 (All); CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT vs. Toyota Motor Corpn. [2008] 306 ITR 49 (Del) (affirmed by the apex court, vide its judgment at [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC)). (also refer: Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 343 (Ch.)(SB)). 4.2 The second, equally relevant, aspect of the matter is if the provision could be invoked in the absence of any tax-exempt income. Toward this, while the ld. Pr.CIT relies on the Board Circul…

Rentokil India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1044/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri S. P. Chidambaram, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 32(1)

…e 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 :-7-: 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…

M/S. Khivraj Motors (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed

ITA 808/CHNY/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.N.Devanathan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.S.Bharath, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the Assessment Order was a non-speaking order which contained only two pages. It was a submission that the order passed u/s.263 was liable to be upheld. He relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.Toyota Motor Corporation 306 ITR 49 (Del). It was also submission that the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5313 of 2008 dated 25.08.2008. It was a submission that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) passed u/s.263 was liable to be upheld. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the Assessment Order pa…

M/S. Khivraj Automobiles Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed

ITA 807/CHNY/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.N.Devanathan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.S.Bharath, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

Abt Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 893/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.893/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. Abt Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.180, Race Course Road, Income Tax, Coimbatore 641 018. Corporate Circle I, Coimbatore [Pan Aabca 8398K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Vijayaprabha, IRS, JCIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…requirements of law was never examined by the ld. Assessing Officer. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Toyota Motor Corporation vs. CIT, 306 ITR 52, after considering the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Toyota Motor Corporation, 306 ITR 49 had clearly held that order which is silent and cryptic is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Especially so when ld. Assessing Officer had not made any enquiry on the claim of the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. What was held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court and later by Hon’ble Apex Court are reproduced h…

Gda Technologies Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for ays 2010-11 & 2011-12 are

ITA 1081/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Mugundan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundara Rao, CIT

Section 10ASection 143Section 263

…ice 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 qusi-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 situat…

Gda Technologies Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for ays 2010-11 & 2011-12 are

ITA 1080/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Mugundan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundara Rao, CIT

Section 10ASection 143Section 263

Ayyazuddin J, Khan, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT- 22

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2881/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2881/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ayyazuddin J. Khan Ito-22(3)-1, Block No. 103, Aggarwal Upavan, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway बनाम/ Plot No. 11, Sector – 19, Nerul, Station, Complex, Vashi, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 706 Navi Mumbai-400 073 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Atxpk 4365 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kishore K. Poddar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri H. N. Singh

For Appellant: Shri Kishore K. PoddarFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh

Section 143(3)Section 263

…Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 867 (Mad.); CIT vs. Export House, Amritsar [2002] 256 ITR 603 (P&H); PT. Lashkari Ram vs. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 309 (All.); CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT vs. Toyota Motor Corpn. [2008] 306 ITR 49 (Del) (affirmed by the apex court, vide its judgment at [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC)); CIT vs. Arunaben Sumankumar [2003] 259 ITR 386 (Guj); besides by the larger bench of the tribunal in Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. vs. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 343 (Chen) (SB), signifying the application of the concept in a variety of fact situations. Coming to the facts of the ca…