Commissioner of Customs v. Toyota Kirloskar

5 SCC 371Reported decision2007#8053 most cited

What is Commissioner of Customs v. Toyota Kirloskar authority for?

Evidence seized and brought into India through proper channels, even if initially kept outside India by the assessee, constitutes admissible evidence against the assessee.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Commissioner of Customs v. Toyota Kirloskar · evidence seized abroad · admissible evidence · proper channels · extraordinary situation · pen drive evidence · ED seizure

Sections most often in play

Section 114(e)Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153B

Issues it is cited on

section 114(e)section 79section 43(3)section 114section 144basection 65bsection 65section 158bgsection 153bsection 50section 132(1)section 158b

Judgments citing Commissioner of Customs v. Toyota Kirloskar

Sushen Mohan Gupta, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 15, Delhi

ITA 3005/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50Section 68

…submissions dated 3.02.2025 filed by the Ld. DR, he started with a legal submission on how the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhishar (supra) is to be read and took us to the texts in the cases of Commissioner of Customs v. Toyota Kirloskar, (2007) 5 SCC 371, Laxmi Devi V. State of Bihar, (2015) 10 SCC 241 & Behrens v. Bertram Mills Circus Ltd., [1957] 2 QB 1, at page 25. According to the Ld. DR, the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishar (supra) would not help the assessee in as much as it has been established that the pen drive belongs to him and this is an extraordinary situat…

Sushen Mohan Gupta, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 15, Delhi

ITA 3004/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Debesh Panda, Special counsel for the Department
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50Section 68

…submissions dated 3.02.2025 filed by the Ld. DR, he started with a legal submission on how the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhishar (supra) is to be read and took us to the texts in the cases of Commissioner of Customs v. Toyota Kirloskar, (2007) 5 SCC 371, Laxmi Devi V. State of Bihar, (2015) 10 SCC 241 & Behrens v. Bertram Mills Circus Ltd., [1957] 2 QB 1, at page 25. According to the Ld. DR, the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishar (supra) would not help the assessee in as much as it has been established that the pen drive belongs to him and this is an extraordinary situat…

Sushen Mohan Gupta, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 15, Delhi

ITA 3003/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50Section 68

…submissions dated 3.02.2025 filed by the Ld. DR, he started with a legal submission on how the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhishar (supra) is to be read and took us to the texts in the cases of Commissioner of Customs v. Toyota Kirloskar, (2007) 5 SCC 371, Laxmi Devi V. State of Bihar, (2015) 10 SCC 241 & Behrens v. Bertram Mills Circus Ltd., [1957] 2 QB 1, at page 25. According to the Ld. DR, the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishar (supra) would not help the assessee in as much as it has been established that the pen drive belongs to him and this is an extraordinary situat…

Sushen Mohan Gupta, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 15, Delhi

ITA 3002/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50Section 68

…submissions dated 3.02.2025 filed by the Ld. DR, he started with a legal submission on how the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhishar (supra) is to be read and took us to the texts in the cases of Commissioner of Customs v. Toyota Kirloskar, (2007) 5 SCC 371, Laxmi Devi V. State of Bihar, (2015) 10 SCC 241 & Behrens v. Bertram Mills Circus Ltd., [1957] 2 QB 1, at page 25. According to the Ld. DR, the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishar (supra) would not help the assessee in as much as it has been established that the pen drive belongs to him and this is an extraordinary situat…

Sushen Mohan Gupta, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 15, Delhi

ITA 3001/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Debesh Panda, Special
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50Section 68

…submissions dated 3.02.2025 filed by the Ld. DR, he started with a legal submission on how the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhishar (supra) is to be read and took us to the texts in the cases of Commissioner of Customs v. Toyota Kirloskar, (2007) 5 SCC 371, Laxmi Devi V. State of Bihar, (2015) 10 SCC 241 & Behrens v. Bertram Mills Circus Ltd., [1957] 2 QB 1, at page 25. According to the Ld. DR, the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishar (supra) would not help the assessee in as much as it has been established that the pen drive belongs to him and this is an extraordinary situat…

Sushen Mohan Gupta, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 15, Delhi

ITA 3000/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Debesh Panda, Special
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50Section 68

…submissions dated 3.02.2025 filed by the Ld. DR, he started with a legal submission on how the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhishar (supra) is to be read and took us to the texts in the cases of Commissioner of Customs v. Toyota Kirloskar, (2007) 5 SCC 371, Laxmi Devi V. State of Bihar, (2015) 10 SCC 241 & Behrens v. Bertram Mills Circus Ltd., [1957] 2 QB 1, at page 25. According to the Ld. DR, the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishar (supra) would not help the assessee in as much as it has been established that the pen drive belongs to him and this is an extraordinary situat…

Sushen Mohan Gupta, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -15, Delhi

ITA 2999/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Debesh Panda, Special counsel for the Department
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50Section 68

…submissions dated 3.02.2025 filed by the Ld. DR, he started with a legal submission on how the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhishar (supra) is to be read and took us to the texts in the cases of Commissioner of Customs v. Toyota Kirloskar, (2007) 5 SCC 371, Laxmi Devi V. State of Bihar, (2015) 10 SCC 241 & Behrens v. Bertram Mills Circus Ltd., [1957] 2 QB 1, at page 25. According to the Ld. DR, the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishar (supra) would not help the assessee in as much as it has been established that the pen drive belongs to him and this is an extraordinary situat…

Sudhir Singh Yadav, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1), Gurgaon

ITA 3001/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Debesh Panda, Special counsel for the Department
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50Section 68

…submissions dated 3.02.2025 filed by the Ld. DR, he started with a legal submission on how the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhishar (supra) is to be read and took us to the texts in the cases of Commissioner of Customs v. Toyota Kirloskar, (2007) 5 SCC 371, Laxmi Devi V. State of Bihar, (2015) 10 SCC 241 & Behrens v. Bertram Mills Circus Ltd., [1957] 2 QB 1, at page 25. According to the Ld. DR, the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishar (supra) would not help the assessee in as much as it has been established that the pen drive belongs to him and this is an extraordinary situat…

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1767/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2020AY 2015-16
Section 115Section 11JSection 143(3)Section 90Section 90(3)

…which is usually employed to give overriding effect to certain provisions over some contrary provisions that may be found in the same enactment, that is to say, to avoid the operation and effect of all contrary provisions. (Laxmi Devi v. State of Bihar [2015] 10 SCC 241; Union of India v. G.M. Kokil [1984] Supp SCC 196. It is equivalent to saying that, inspite of the provisions mentioned in the non-obstante clause, the provision following it will have full operation, or the provisions embraced in the non-obstante clause will not be an impediment for the operation of the enactment or the provision in which the non…

Commissioner of Customs (Port) Kolkata vs. M/S. Steel Authority of India Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

C.A. No.-006398-006398 - 2009Supreme Court27 Apr 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE

…el Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE 3. (2007) 9 SCC 401: Commissioner of Customs Vs. J.K. Corp. Ltd. 4. (2015) 14 SCC 750: Commissioner of Customs Vs. Hindalco Industries 5. (2015) 16 SCC 506: Commissioner, Customs Vs. Denso Kirloskar Industries 28 6. (2007) 5 SCC 371: Commissioner of Customs Vs. Toyota Kirloskar 7. (2008) 4 SCC 563: Commissioner of Customs Vs. Ferodo India (P) Ltd. 17. In the case of Essar Steel Limited (supra), there were two contracts with the overseas exporter. One was a purchase order for setting up of a plant. The other was between Met Chem Canada Inc. with Essar Ltd. to associate…

Indusind Media and Communications Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs New Delhi

C.A. No.-002498 - 2018Supreme Court27 Sept 2019

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 111Section 112Section 114ASection 130ESection 18

…e price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of the said Rules. Rule 9 of the Rules provides for determination of transaction value, stating: 4 2007 (213) ELT 4 (SC) = (2007) 5 SCC 371 Civil Appeal No. 2498 of 2018 Indusind Media & Communications Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 16 “9. Cost and services.—(1) In determining the transaction value, there shall be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods, — (a) the following cost and services, to the extent they are incurred by the buye…

Commnr. of Customs, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Essar Steel Ltd

C.A. No.-003042-003042 - 2004Supreme Court13 Apr 2015

…See (2002) 142 ELT 343 (Tri); (2003) 156 ELT 62 (Tri); (2006) 195 ELT 206 (Tri) and (2006) 205 ELT 208 (Tri)]” 17. Essar Gujarat has also been distinguished in Commissioner of Customs (Port), Chennai v. Toyota Kirloskar Motor (P) Ltd., (2007) 5 SCC 371, as follows:- “36. Therefore, law laid down in Essar Gujarat Ltd. [(1997) 9 SCC 738] and J.K. Corpn. Ltd. [(2007) 9 SCC 401 : (2007) 2 Scale 459] is absolutely clear and explicit. Apart from the fact that Essar Gujarat Ltd. [(1997) 9 SCC 738] was determined on the peculiar facts obtaining therein and furthermore having…

Commnr. of Customs, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Essar Steel Ltd

C.A. No.-003042-003042 - 2004Supreme Court13 Apr 2015

…See (2002) 142 ELT 343 (Tri); (2003) 156 ELT 62 (Tri); (2006) 195 ELT 206 (Tri) and (2006) 205 ELT 208 (Tri)]” 17. Essar Gujarat has also been distinguished in Commissioner of Customs (Port), Chennai v. Toyota Kirloskar Motor (P) Ltd., (2007) 5 SCC 371, as follows:- “36. Therefore, law laid down in Essar Gujarat Ltd. [(1997) 9 SCC 738] and J.K. Corpn. Ltd. [(2007) 9 SCC 401 : (2007) 2 Scale 459] is absolutely clear and explicit. Apart from the fact that Essar Gujarat Ltd. [(1997) 9 SCC 738] was determined on the peculiar facts obtaining therein and furthermore having…

Commissioner of Income Tax(C)-III vs. Svp Industries Ltd

ITA/495/2013HC Delhi03 Sept 2014
Section 3

…the accounting year, whether the manufacturer has incurred liability to pay excise duty on the manufactured goods is the question”. 7. In the aforesaid judgment, decision of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise Vs. Polyset Corporation, [2000] 10 SCC 241 was quoted and it has been observed that dutiability on excisable goods is determined with reference to the date of manufacture and the rate of excise duty payable is determined with reference to the date of clearance of the goods. In other words, in respect of the excisable goods manufactured and lying in stock, excise duty liability would…