Commissioner Of Income Tax,Cwentral-Ii, Kolkata v. Haldiram Bhujiwala Limited
High Court
06 Jun 2022 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax,Cwentral-Ii, Kolkata v. Haldiram Bhujiwala Limited
Date of order
06 Jun 2022
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax,Cwentral-Ii, Kolkata v. Haldiram Bhujiwala Limited, the High Court (2022) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In the result, the appeal stands rejected and thesubstantial question of law suggested by the revenue is left open.Consequently, the connected application for stay (IANo.GA/2/2011) also stands closed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
ITAT/155/2011
IA No.GA/1/2011 (Old No.GA/1660/2011)IA No.GA/2/2011 (Old No.GA/1661/2011)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CWENTRAL-II, KOLKATA
-Versus-
HALDIRAM BHUJIWALA LIMITED
Appearance:Mr. Aryak Dutta, Adv....for the appellant.Ms. Manju Agarwalla, Adv....for the respondent.
BEFORE:
The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
-And-
The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
The Court : We have heard Mr. Aryak Dutta, learnedstanding counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Ms. ManjuAgarwalla, learned Advocate for the respondent/assessee.There is a delay of 1733 days in filing the appeal. Wehave perused the affidavit filed in support of the condonation ofdelay petition and we find that no reasons have been given for thehuge delay in filing the appeal. That apart, as rightly pointedout by the learned Advocate for the respondent, that the tax
effect in this appeal is also less than the threshold fixed by thecircular issued by the CBDT.
For the above reasons, the application for condonation ofdelay (IA No.GA/1/2011) is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal stands rejected and thesubstantial question of law suggested by the revenue is left open.Consequently, the connected application for stay (IANo.GA/2/2011) also stands closed.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
As/S.Das
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.