How many judgments cite Toyota Motor Corporation v. CIT?

43 judgments on BharatTax cite Toyota Motor Corporation v. CIT (306 ITR 52), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Toyota Motor Corporation v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 263, Section 36(1)(iii), Section 68.

Toyota Motor Corporation v. CIT

306 ITR 52Supreme Court of India2008#2717 most cited

What is Toyota Motor Corporation v. CIT authority for?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot substitute its own reasons for those that the Assessing Officer failed to record or adequately inquire into; it must instead remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Toyota Motor Corporation v. CIT · 306 ITR 52 · Supreme Court · Tribunal cannot substitute reasons · remand to Assessing Officer · inadequate enquiry by AO · Section 143(3) assessment · Section 263 revision · Assessing Officer duty to inquire · ITAT powers remand · AO reasons for assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 263 Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

Issues it is cited on

national tax tribunal section 293 section 65a section 65b(4)section 153b(1)(b)section 74 section 2(28a)section 73 section 153(2a)inadequate enquiry section 263(1)section 153b(1)

Judgments citing Toyota Motor Corporation v. CIT

DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2585/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Dlf Home Developers Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Sansad Delhi-1, Marg, New Delhi-110001. New Delhi Pan-Aaccd0037H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Singhvi, Ca & Shri Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 143(3)Section 263

…3. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) 4. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tara Devi Aggarwals v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) 5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toyota Motor Corporation v. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC) 6. Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT [70 taxmann.com 124 (Calcutta)/[2016] 240 Taxman 306 (Calcutta)/[2016] 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta)/[2016] 287 CTR 512 7. Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC)/[2017] 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 8. Order of Hon'ble ITAT F-Bench in the case of PTC Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT, ITA No. 286…

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

…Page 23 of 35 33. The aforesaid decision was affirmed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Toyota Motor Corporation v. Commissioner of Income- tax: (2008) 306 ITR 52. 34. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.: (2011) 332 ITR 167 had highlighted the necessity to bear in mind the distinction between ―lack of inquiry‖ and ―inadequate enquiry‖. We consider it apposite to refer to the following passage from the said decision: ―17. …Learned counsel for the assesse…

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

…h 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 was up for consideration, reads as under: Investment in new plant or machinery. 32AC. (1) Where an assessee, bei…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before 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) Appellant by: Shri Padmanathan K.V., Advocate Respondent by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 09.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 30.04.2024 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is an appeal by the assessee in res…

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

…ated in the return when the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an enquiry. 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…

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)

…nquiry. 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 examination and adjudication, deciding the issue/s delineated. Both the…

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

…ace 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 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, a…

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

…ourt 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 proceedings. That is, after the comp…

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

OMM SHREE REALCON PVT. LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 97/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabco 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 28 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

…so-far it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on the ground of non-application of mind and failure to make proper enquiry (refer, inter alia, Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman 66 (SC); Toyota Motor Corpn. v. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 52/173 Taxman 458 (SC); Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi); and Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 343 (Chd.) (SB)). So, however, the ld. CIT, the competent authority, has given a definite direction to the AO to frame fresh assessment, setting aside that made in the first instance, in terms of his directions, i.e., o…

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

…ace 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 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…

PRATEEK GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 785/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Prateek Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 Pan Atbpg8602J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…drop the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As per the Ld. Pr. CIT the noting of the Ld. AO is cryptic, non speaking and made without application of mind. With due respect, we disagree. In Toyota Motor Corporation vs. CIT (2008) 306 ITR 52 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the Assessing Officer dropped the penalty proceedings initiated by him without giving detailed reason, there can be no revision, when the record indicated that he had gone into the facts before dropping the penalty proceedings. Similar view has been taken by Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in Shabir T…

SANDEEP GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 784/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Sandeep Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201009 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…p the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As per the Ld. Pr. CIT the noting of the Ld. AO is 11 cryptic, non speaking and made without application of mind. With due respect, we disagree. In Toyota Motor Corporation vs. CIT (2008) 306 ITR 52 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the Assessing Officer dropped the penalty proceedings initiated by him without giving detailed reason, there can be no revision, when the record indicated that he had gone into the facts before dropping the penalty proceedings. Similar view has been taken by Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in Shabir T…

LEARNING CURVE EDUTECH SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT-7, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 832/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…n.com 10)(Bom) • Sripan Land Development (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (46 SOT 447)(Mum) • Arvee International Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (101 ITD 495)(Mum) • CIT Vs.Deepak Garg (299 ITR 435)(MP) • CIT Vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (342 ITR 74)(Gau) • Toyota Motor Corporation Vs. CIT (306 ITR 52)(SC) 10. We find that in all the aforesaid cases relied by the learned DR, there was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer and requisite enquiries were not carried out by the learned Assessing Officer and hence revision jurisdiction of learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act was upheld by Hon'ble courts. Whereas in the instant case, fr…

ROOP KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 386/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…//FIT FOR PUBLICATION// OP Kant BS A.M. J.M. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.383/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Smt. Abha Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), 103B, The Aralias, DLF Gurgaon. Golf Link City Phase-V, vs. Gurgaon, Haryana. Haryana. PIN – 122 001 PIN – 122 001. PAN AANPB8695H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.384/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Shri Pankaj Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), C-13, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon. Phase-1, Gurgaon, vs. Haryana. Haryana.…

SHRI BASANT BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 385/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

PANKAJ BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 384/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

ABHA BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 383/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

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)

…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.T. Mumbai B Bench ITANo.2745/Mum/2012 6. Based on the above, it is clear that, t…

AMBAWATT BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT (C), GURGAON

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

ITA 2552/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Ambawatt Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit (C), Kh 267, 1St Floor, 7Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, Chatterpur Enclave, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Mehrauli, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan: Aagca0991B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Satpal Gulati, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17Th February, 2017 Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Cit, Central, Gurgaon, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2014, Declaring Nil Income. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Compulsory Scrutiny & A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee On 20Th September, 2015. Notice U/S 142(1) Along With A Questionnaire Was Also Issued On 12Th May, 2016. In Response To The Statutory Notices Issued By The Ao, The Assessee Appeared Before Him From Time To Time & Furnished Replies Which Were Kept On Record. The Ao, On The Basis Of Various Details Furnished Before Him, Disallowed An Amount Of Rs.3,91,936/- U/S 40A(3) Out Of Car Repairs & Maintenance & Determined The Total Loss Of The Assessee At Rs.94,25,270/- As Against The Returned Loss Of Rs.98,17,203/-.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person Cryptic AO Order: 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toyota Motor Corporation vs. CIT (2008) 306 ITR 52 (SC) held that the action of CIT to initiate the revisionary powers is valid if the AO order is cryptic and not a self- contained order giving the relevant facts and reasons for coming to the conclusion based on those facts and law and the order does not indicate the briefest of reasons, accepting or rejecting any argument. 2. The Hon. Supreme Cou…

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3