Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-Iv v. M/S. Vantage Advertising Pvt. Ltd

OD–9 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/334/2009WITHITA/343/2009 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-IVVS.M/s. VANTAGE ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 20 FEBRUARY, 2023 Appearance :Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv.Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv.Ms. S. Das, Adv. ITA/334/2009 The Court : - Heard learned Counsel for the either side. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961is directed against the order dated 30.6.2009 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal ‘C’ Bench, Kolkata in ITA No. 1055/Kol/2008 for the assessment year 2005-06. The appeal was admitted on 10.12.2009 on the following substantial question oflaw :- i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-taxAppellate Tribunal erred in law in allowing deduction under Section 80IAin respect of bus shelters without appreciating the fact that the same donot qualify as infrastructural facilities and also do not form integral part ofthe project as per provisions under Section 80IA of the Income-tax Act,1961 ?” It is submitted by the learned Advocate on either side that the tax effect involvedin this case is less than the threshold limit fixed by the CBDT. This submission isborne out by record as could be seen from the order passed from Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Appeals II, Kolkata dated 28.3.2008 where the tax which has beendemanded is Rs.57,50,496/-. In the light of the same the revenue cannot pursue this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of on the ground of low tax effect and thesubstantial question of law is left open. ITA/343/2009 Heard learned Counsel for either side. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961is directed against the order dated 30.6.2009 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal ‘C’ Bench, Kolkata in ITA No. 1054 & 1055/Kol/2008 for the assessment year2004-05. The appeal was admitted on 17.12.2009 on the following substantial questionof law : i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learnedCIT(A) was justified in law in upholding the judgment and order of thelearned Tribunal and thereby allowing provisions of 2,18,10,252/- whenthe liability for the same was not crystalised during the year and it finallygot crystalised in the assessment year 2005-2006 at an amount ofRs.1,03,00,000/- ?CIT(A) was justified in law in upholding the judgment and order of thelearned Tribunal and thereby allowing provisions of 2,18,10,252/- whenthe liability for the same was not crystalised during the year and it finallygot crystalised in the assessment year 2005-2006 at an amount ofRs.1,03,00,000/- ? ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learnedC.I.T.(A) is justified in law in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) andthereby allowing prior period expenses (net) of Rs.1,26,509/- by observingthat it represented only expenses and not receiptsC.I.T.(A) is justified in law in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) andthereby allowing prior period expenses (net) of Rs.1,26,509/- by observingthat it represented only expenses and not receipts We have heard learned Counsel for either side. It is submitted by the learned Advocate on either side that the tax effect involvedin this case is only Rs.86,64,150/- and, therefore, it is well below the threshold limit ofRs. One crore as fixed by the C.B.D.T. to file appeals before this Court or to pursue thepending appeals. In the light of the same observation, the revenue cannot pursue this appeal.In the result the appeals stands disposed of on the ground of low tax effect andthe substantial questions of law are left open. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)