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.

43

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 147Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

national tax tribunalsection 293section 65asection 65b(4)section 153b(1)(b)section 74section 2(28a)section 73section 153(2a)inadequate enquirysection 263(1)section 153b(1)

Judgments citing Toyota Motor Corporation v. CIT

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

In the result , the appeal in ITA No

ITA 7490/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…

Elder It Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 4, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2461/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri A.V.SondeFor Respondent: Manjunatha R.Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘ई’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.2461/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Elder IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 6 Vs. The Principal Ground Floor, Hanumanta Commissioner of Income Apartment, Bamanwada, Nr. Tax-4, Mumbai. Chakala Cigarette Factory, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AABCE 9586 F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri A.V.Sonde याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Manju…

Gemini Industries and Imaging Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1255/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1255/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Nair, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 136Section 263Section 35DSection 50C

…ly erroneous but also prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. This view of the Tribunal is fortified by the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Mukherjee v. Union of India 1990 AIR SC 1984 and in Toyota Motor Corporation v. CIT (2008) 306 ITR 52 (SC). The Commissioner has simply set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and directed to pass an order de novo after conducting proper enquiry. Therefore, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that the assessee may not have any grievance at all. It is for the assessee to place all the material before the concerned Assessing Officer. The As…