Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

M/S. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION versus COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

Decided
25 August 2008
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 943 · 2008 INSC 974

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

p. 943, margin F

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

p. 943, margin G

We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. The High Court has held that th~ Assessing Officer had disposed the proceedings stating the penalty proceedings initiated in this case u/s 271 C read with Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are hereby dropped. According to the High Court, there was no basis indicated for dropping the proceedings. The Tribunal referred to certain aspects and held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the l.T.Act) was impermissible when considered in the background of the materials purportedly placed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. What the High Court has done is to require the Assessing Officer to pass a reasoned order. The High Court was of the view that Tribunal could not have substituted its own reasonings which were required to be recorded by the Assessing Officer. According to the assessee all relevant aspects were placed for consideration and if the officer did not record reasons, assessee can not be faulted.

pp. 943–944, margin G

We do not think it necessary to interfere at this stage. It goes without saying that when the matter be taken up by the Assessing Officer on remand, it shall be his duty to take into account all the relevant aspects including the materials, if any, already placed by the assessee, and pass a reasoned order.

p. 944, margin D

The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid obseivations. K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.

p. 944, margin E