Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax,Kolkata-Ii v....

Commissioner Of Income Tax,Kolkata-Ii v. Starpaper Mills Ltd

High Court 09 Feb 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax,Kolkata-Ii v. Starpaper Mills Ltd
Date of order
09 Feb 2023
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax,Kolkata-Ii v. Starpaper Mills Ltd, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.

Decision: Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue(ITA/213/2009) stands disposed of and the substantial questionsof law are left open.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

OD-7 ITA/213/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KOLKATA-II -Versus- STARPAPER MILLS LTD. BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 9[th ]February, 2023 Appearance :Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv.…for the appellant. Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv.Mr. A. K. Dey, Adv.…for the respondent. The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ forbrevity) is directed against the order dated 30[th] January, 2009passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata(the Tribunal) in ITA No.1007/Kol/2008 and ITA No.1987/Kol/2008for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2003-04 repsectively. The appeal was admitted on the following substantialquestions of law: (i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case the Learned Tribunal was justified inlaw to hold that provision for pension,provision for leave encashment and provision for wealth tax are ascertained liability whenthe assessee failed to substantiate the sameas ascertained liability ? (ii)Whether the Tribunal committed a manifest errorof law in overlooking that 245 ITR 428 hadnothing to do with computation of book profitunder clause (c) to the explanation of Section115JB which was not in the statute at the timeof pronouncement of the said decision ? We have heard Mr. Aryak Dutt, learned standing counselfor the appellant/revenue and Mr. Prathyush Jhunjhunwala,learned counsel assisted by Mr. A.K. Dey, learned Advocate forthe respondent/assessee. As could be seen from the computation of tax asfurnished by the respondent/assessee, the tax effect isRs.60,50,669/- which is well below the threshold limit of Rs.1crore. Therefore, the revenue cannot pursue this appeal beforethis Court. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue(ITA/213/2009) stands disposed of and the substantial questionsof law are left open. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) A/s./K.Banerjee
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan