Kvaverner John Brown Engg(India) P. Ltd. v. ACIT

349 ITR 324High Court2012#12707 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

section 2(24)(x)section 43b section 143(1)(a)section 36(1)(va)section 43 section 36(1)section 36 income-tax officer section 143(1)section 80 section 139(1)section 139

Judgments citing Kvaverner John Brown Engg(India) P. Ltd. v. ACIT

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

…ut issuing notice or giving opportunity. He relied on several decisions, including those of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kvaerner John Brown reported in 170 taxman 304, and of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Easter Industries Ltd vs. Union of Inida in 349 ITR 324 and Calcutta High Court in case of Mintri Tea Co. Pvt Ltd vs. CIT in 223 CTR 241, where it was held that only obvious and undisputed errors can be adjusted under section 143(1) of the Act. 26.4 The learned AR further submitted that the Finance Act 2021 amendments to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act were prospective and apply only fro…

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

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

…restricted to arithmetical errors, if any, and/ or an 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 n…

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

SIS CASH SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE, 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

…e adjustments are permitted thereon, and certainly not adjustments which pertain to debatable 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…

IECS LIMITED EMPLOYEE PF COVERED UNDER FPS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 8503/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Deepashree Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Senior DR

Section 10(25)Section 10(25)(ii)Section 12Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 17(1)

…vide order dated 03.03.1979 (supra), there is no scope for the Revenue to deny the exemption claimed u/s 10(25)(ii) of the Act on hyper technical grounds. 7. Hon’ble Delhi High Court while deciding the identical issue in case of Easter Industries Ltd. vs. UOI 349 ITR 324 (Del.) held that, “where it is evident from the return as filed along with the documents in support thereof that a claim of the assessee is inadmissible, only then an adjustment under the said proviso can be made. If proof in support of the claim is not furnished by the assessee, then, for the lack of proof, no disallowance or an adjustment can b…

IECS LIMITED EMPLOYEE PF COVERED UNDER FPS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGLORE

ITA 2922/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Senior DR

Section 10(25)Section 10(25)(ii)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 17(1)

…e order dated 03.03.1979 (supra), there is no scope for the Revenue to deny the exemption claimed u/s 10(25)(ii) of the Act on hyper technical grounds. 7. Hon’ble Delhi High Court while deciding the identical issue in case of Easter Industries Ltd. vs. UOI 349 ITR 324 (Del.) held that, “where it is evident from the return as filed along with the documents in support thereof that a claim of the assessee is inadmissible, only then an adjustment under the said proviso can be made. If proof in support of the claim is not furnished by the assessee, then, for the lack of proof, no disallowance or an adjustment can b…

ESTER INDUSTRIES LIMITED

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/702/2007HC Delhi29 Jul 2013

Section 115JSection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154

…ellant-assessee and against the respondent in view of the decision in SRF Charitable Trust versus Union of India & Others, (1992) 193 ITR 95 (Del.). This judgment was followed in assessee’s own case in the decision dated 14th May, 2012 reported in (2012) 349 ITR 324 (Del.). The adjustment allowed in the present case would not be covered within the four corners and limited scope of Section 142(1)(a). The assessee, as noticed above, had specifically claimed that he was not liable to pay minimum alternative tax under Section 115JA. The contention may be wrong or incorrect but it has to be dealt with and…