Easter Industries Ltd. v. Union of India

223 CTR 241High Court#15349 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 145Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(24)(x)section 43bsection 143(1)(a)section 36(1)(va)section 43section 36(1)section 36section 80section 139(1)section 143(1)section 139section 143

Judgments citing Easter Industries Ltd. v. Union of India

Dusters Total Solutions Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 980/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 80J

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.652- 653-980/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2020-21 The Dy. Commissioner of Dussters Total Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. 332/1, Corporate Miller, 3rd Floor, Income Tax, Thimmaiah Road, 3rd Floor, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bangalore. Vasanth Nagar, Bangalore – 560 052. . PAN – AACCD 5989 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Kavita Jha, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 04.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : .12.2025 O R D E R…

Dusters Total Solutions Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 653/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 80J

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.652- 653-980/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2020-21 The Dy. Commissioner of Dussters Total Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. 332/1, Corporate Miller, 3rd Floor, Income Tax, Thimmaiah Road, 3rd Floor, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bangalore. Vasanth Nagar, Bangalore – 560 052. . PAN – AACCD 5989 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Kavita Jha, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 04.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : .12.2025 O R D E R…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, C R Building Ip Estate vs. Coforge Limited, Gur Ravi Das Marg Kalkaji

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

ITA 4659/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80M

…incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, and not otherwise [refer Kvaverner John Brown Engg(India) P. Ltd. v. ACIT: [2008] 170 Taxman 304 (SC) , Easter Industries Ltd v. Union of India: 349 ITR 324 (Del HC), Mintri Tea Co. (P.) Ltd v. CIT: 223 CTR 241 (Cal. He), Raj Kumar Botha vs. DCIT: TAXC No. 5612025 (Cht HC)] 9. He submitted that for the reasons cumulatively discussed supra, the impugned intimation dated 17.10.2022 issued under section 143(1) of the Act is without jurisdiction, having been passed in blatant violation of principles of natural justice and calls for being quashed as illegal.…

Coforge Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

ITA 4333/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80M

…incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, and not otherwise [refer Kvaverner John Brown Engg(India) P. Ltd. v. ACIT: [2008] 170 Taxman 304 (SC) , Easter Industries Ltd v. Union of India: 349 ITR 324 (Del HC), Mintri Tea Co. (P.) Ltd v. CIT: 223 CTR 241 (Cal. He), Raj Kumar Botha vs. DCIT: TAXC No. 5612025 (Cht HC)] 9. He submitted that for the reasons cumulatively discussed supra, the impugned intimation dated 17.10.2022 issued under section 143(1) of the Act is without jurisdiction, having been passed in blatant violation of principles of natural justice and calls for being quashed as illegal.…

Sis Cash Services Private Limited, Patna vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 240/PAT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 May 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Kavita Jha, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…able issues. The Ld. AR relied on the case of Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) P. ltd. Vs. ACIT [2008] 170 Taxman 304 (SC) and Easter Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India 349 ITR 324 (Del.). Reliance was also placed on the case of Mintri Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [223 CTR 241 (Cal)]. iii) It was vehemently argued that the rectification done by CPC u/s. 154 of the Act was beyond the scope of such section. The main thrust of the argument here is that the rectification was carried out vide order dated 01.07.2022, whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. (supra) was dated 12.10.2022 i.e. the…

Subramanya Karthik, Bhadravathi vs. ITO, Ward- 1 & Tps, Shimoga

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

ITA 1142/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…one month prior to the due date of filing of ROI [w.e.f.01.04.2020]. Therefore, ROI is a separate document which may or may not expressly reflect what is in the audit report. 3.9 Reliance is placed on the following decisions; (a) Mintri Tea Co (P) Ltd Vs CIT 223 CTR 241 [2009] (Cal) — AO couldn't make a disallowance in respect of Provident fund contribution in proceedings u/s.143(1)(a) or 154. Kalpesh synthetics (P) Ltd Vs DCIT [2022] 137 taxmann.com 475 (a) (Mum) — Information provided in tax audit report would cease to be relevant and disallowance u/s.143(1)(a)(iv) is to be deleted in toto. (c) Lanjani Co-oper…

Easter Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (223 CTR 241) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax