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#2714 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 366,339 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

Read the full judgment

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

M/S. Yash Dev Mahajan & Sons (HUF), New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2040/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…sessment record does not show that the AO made any query to the assessee to explain the difference in two valuation reports with documentary evidence relied upon in this regard. Reliance was placed on two decisions firstly in the case Toyota Motor Corporation 306 ITR 52 Hon’ble Supreme Court and secondly in the case of Shri Bhram Dev Gupta in ITA No.907/2017 C. M. APPL 38787/2017. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. It is a settled position of law that powers u/s 263 of the Act can be exercised by the Commissioner on satisfaction of twin conditions, i.e., the asses…

Amar Singh Chaudhary, Jabalpur vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 28/JAB/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur27 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesan&Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153A(1)Section 153CSection 263Section 48

…ning the same, was held by the Apex Court to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The case law in the matter is legion, followed, as afore-stated, by the Hon’ble Courts, including the Apex Court (as in Toyota Motor Corp. v. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC)), all through. We therefore do not consider it necessary or proper to dwell on the cited decisions, having, as afore- stated, not been met by either side. The said decisions, as their bare reading would show, are neither contradictory nor against the principles laid down by the Apex Court. Nothing therefore turns thereon. The difference in th…

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)

…ex Court to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue (Tara 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 Enterpris…

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

…512 (Calcutta) 14. Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs Pr.CIT, Kolkatta-III [2017] 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC) 15. CIT v Toyota Motor Corpn [2008] 174 Taxman 395 (Delhi)/[2008] 306 ITR 49 ) (Delhi) /[2008] 218 CTR 628 (Delhi) 16. Toyota Motor Coproation vs CIT [2018] 306 ITR 52(SC)/[2008] 218 CTR 539 (SC) 17. Deniel Merchants Pvt.Ltd. & Anr vs ITO and Anr.(Supreme Court) dated 29.11.2017. 18. CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (Madhya Pradesh)/[2007] 212 CTR 152 (Madhya Pradesh) 19. Sripan Land Developmetn (P.) Ltd. vs CIT [2011] 11 taxmann.com 429 (Mumbai)/[2011] 46 SOT 447 (Mumbai) 20. Binod Kumar Agarwala vs…

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

…circumstances, learned PCIT had the authority and jurisdiction 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 upo…

Mr.Aritro Ashish Roy, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT(A)-24, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesee is allowed

ITA 1791/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiaritro Ashsish Roy Vs. Acit-24(1) Room No.604, 6Th Floor Plot No.121, Edifice 5Th Road, Khar(W) Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 052 Parel Mumbai-400 012 Pan/Gir No.Agapr8158C Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…gs. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Eastern Medi Kit Ltd. 2011 337 ITR 56. The Ld.DR has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Toyota Motor corporation vs CIT 2008 306 ITR 52 9. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The Ld.PCIT can assume jurisdiction u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, 1961, to revise assessment passed by the AO, if he is satisfied that 9 Aritro Ashish Roy the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous, in so far as, it…

R.P.Darmalingam, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1846/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.Mohandas, C.A ""For Respondent: Ms.V.S.Sreelekha, CIT, D.r

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271C

…was a submission that the dropping of the penalty proceedings was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The ld.D.R placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the :- 4 -: case of Toyota Motor Corporation reported in 306 ITR 52 SC wherein in respect of failure to deduct tax at source, the ld. Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings, but had dropped them without giving detailed reasons, then the Commissioner of Income Tax had invoked the power of revision and had directed the ld. Assessing Officer to pass reasoned order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had uphel…

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

…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 there indeed was, in the facts and circumstances of a case, ground for re…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-11 vs. Shri Braham Dev Gupta

The appeals are allowed

ITA/907/2017HC Delhi20 Jul 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 263

…penses could be allowed, is absent. For the other years, the reasoning why 22 parties could have been taken into account, for a vast majority of others (58) is absent, for AY 2011- 12. 18. In Toyota Motor Corporation vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 306 ITR 52 (SC) it was held by the Supreme Court as follows: “We are unable to appreciate this reasoning given by the Tribunal simply because that the AO himself did not say any such thing in his order. There is no doubt that the proceedings before the AO are quasi-judicial proceedings and a decision ITA 907/2017 & ITA 1162/2017 Page 13 of 13 t…

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

…s. 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 Circular 5/2014, the ld. Authorized Representative (AR), the assessee’s counsel,…

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

…xpenditure incurred in relation to such dividend income. This is a pure estimate and whether such estimate satisfied the 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 cour…

M/S.Acumen Capital Market(India) Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The ITO, Cochin

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

ITA 555/COCH/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm Acumen Capital Marketing (I) Ltd Vs The Income Tax Officer 3Rd Floor St Reddiar & /Sons Bldg Ward 1(1), Kochi Veekshanam /Road Ernakulam ( Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 43Section 5

…ted by the ld DR that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is amenable to interference u/s 263 of the Act. For the above proposition, the ld DR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Toyota Motor Corporation vs CIT reported in 306 ITR 52. 6 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. As mentioned earlier, the CIT had listed out four reasons to invoke his revisionary jurisdictional u/s 263 of the Act. For ready reference, we reproduce the four reasons as under: i) Bank Guarantee commission to be considered as interest for disallowance u/s 14A : ii) I…

M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Cochin vs. The Adcit, Cochin

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 124/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P. George, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ature of such expenses. According to him, lack of enquiry by itself would render the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Relying on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of 7 I.T.A. No.124/Coch/2016 Toyota Motor Corporation vs. CIT (306 ITR 52), Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer ought have given reasons before accepting the claim of corporate social responsibility expenses. As per Ld. DR, a cryptic order passed by the Assessing Officer would by itself be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. 9. In so far as the claim of interest expenditure was concerned, su…

Surabi Bullion, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1482/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…That the power stands exercised in respect of an order dropping penalty, i.e., where per a speaking order, as in the instant case, makes it that much more amenable to revision, as stands clarified by the Apex court in Toyota Motor Corporation vs. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC). 5. Coming to the facts of the case, the assessee was during the course of the search proceedings u/s. 132(1) (on the partners of the assessee-firm) on 24.09.2012, found to have under-stated the closing stock with it as on 31.03.2011, by Rs. 12,02,598/- and, accordingly, of having under-stated its’ income for the relevant assessment year by…

M/S Hero Honda Motors Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2148/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh C.M.Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Honda Motors Ltd, Dcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, Circle-12(1), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacg0812J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. AK Saroha, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 9

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SH C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hero Honda Motors Ltd, DCIT, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, Circle-12(1), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AAACG0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv Ms. Bhavita Kumar, Adv Revenue by: Sh. AK Saroha, CIT DR Date of Hearing 03/11/2016 Date of pronouncement 02/02/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of LD CIT, New Delhi passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 d…

Namita V Samant, Mumbai vs. CIT City II, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1065/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Namita V. Samant, Cit, City-11/Acit-11(3)(2), बनाम/ 405, Raheja Crest Building No.1, Mumbai Off Link Road, Oshiwara, Vs. Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aazps 4624 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. R. Agarwal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Jha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 18.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-11, Mumbai (‘Cit’ For Short) Dated 23.2.2016 Setting Aside Her Assessment For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 Vide Order Dated 14.2.2014. 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual & Her Husband, Shri Vivek V. Samant (Vvs), Both Individually Hold Substantial Voting Power (I.E., In Excess Of 10%) During The Relevant Year In Three Companies In Which Public Is Not Substantially Interested, I.E., Ybpl, Ycpl & Yiepl, As Under:

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Jha

Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…ous in-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. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC); Toyota Motor Corporation vs. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC); Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del); and Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 343 (Ch.)(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., of the loan/s amou…

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

…xport 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 case, it is not clear if the loan confirmations were filed by the loan credi…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3128/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

…nue: i) Malabar Industrial Co. ltd Vs CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) ii) Gee Vee Enterprise Vs. Addl CIT 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) 3128/Del/2014, AY: 2008-09 M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. iii) K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar v CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad) iv) Toyota Motor Corporation v CIT 306 ITR 52 (SC) 20. The ld counsel of the Revenue also presented in detail that even on merit, the issue of sales-tax exemption as revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee stood in favour of the Revenue. He narrated in details the concerned notifications issue by the Government of Madhya Pradesh granting exemption for central sales-tax (CST), Entry Tax,…

Jindal Steel Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3283/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

Udaysingh P Bobade (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result , the appeal in ITA No

ITA 7491/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7490/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Sujaysingh P. Bobade (Huf) बनाम/ I.T.O. 19(1)(2), A-101, Amrit Chs Ltd. Piramal Chambers, V. 15 Carter Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaphs9015L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

…in- adequate inquiry by the AO . The Ld. CIT DR relied upon decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Infosys Technologies Limited (2012 ) 17 taxmann.com 203(Kar.HC) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Toyota Motor Corporation (2008) 306 ITR 52 (SC) and decision in the case of IPCA Laboratories Limited rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court and ld. CIT DR submitted that benefit which is not given by law cannot be conferred. On the other hand ld AR submitted that it is simply transfer of tenancy right and he relied upon decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT V Tip Top Typ…