Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-Ii v. M/S. Umil Share & Stock Broking Services Ltd
High Court
01 Dec 2021 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-Ii v. M/S. Umil Share & Stock Broking Services Ltd
Date of order
01 Dec 2021
Assessment year(s)
2008-09
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-Ii v. M/S. Umil Share & Stock Broking Services Ltd, the High Court (2021) decided the matter.
Decision: Recording the said submission, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
OD – 2
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE
ITA/66/2014
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II VS. M/S. UMIL SHARE & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD.
BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM A N D THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date: December 1, 2021.
Appearance :Mr. S. N. Dutta, Adv. …for the appellant
Mr. Vineet Tibrewal, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv. …for the respondent
The Court : This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section
260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 29[th] November, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No. 640/Kol/2012 for the Assessment Year 2008-09.
The Revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration:
1.Whether the learned Tribunal and the said Commissioner erred in computing disallowance,
under Section 14A of the said Act, on the basis of net interest paid by the assessee and not on the basis of gross interest which is contrary to the provisions laid down in Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the said Rules?
We have heard Mr. S. N. Dutta, learned standing counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr. Vineet Tibrewal along with Mr. Siddharth Das learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.
Learned standing counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal is hit by the circular issued by the CBDT on account of low tax effect. Recording the said submission, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Consequently, substantial question of law is left open.
(T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
GH/sp3
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.