Commissioner Of Income Tax,Kolkata-Iii, Kolkata v. M/S. Neelkantha Steel Limited
High Court
06 Jun 2022 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax,Kolkata-Iii, Kolkata v. M/S. Neelkantha Steel Limited
Date of order
06 Jun 2022
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax,Kolkata-Iii, Kolkata v. M/S. Neelkantha Steel 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 questions of law suggested by the revenue are leftopen.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
OD-5
ITAT/93/2011IA No.GA/1/2011 (Old No.GA/1049/2011)IA No.GA/2/2011 (Old No.GA/1050/2011)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KOLKATA-III, KOLKATA
-Versus-
M/S. NEELKANTHA STEEL LIMITED
Appearance:Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Adv....for the appellant.Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv.Mr. Siddhartha Das, Adv.Ms. Swapna Das, Adv....for the respondent.
BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
-And-
The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
Date : 6[th] June, 2022.
The Court : We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learnedstanding counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J. P.Khaitan, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Siddhartha Das andMs. Swapna Das, learned Advocates for the respondent/assessee.There is a delay of 2635 days in filing the appeal. Wehave perused the affidavit filed in support of the condonation ofdelay petition and we find that there is absolutely no explanation
for the inordinate delay, therefore, we are not inclined toexercise any discretion in the matter. Further, we note thatthere was direction issued by this Court to the department to paycosts of Rs.10,000/- which has not been complied with.Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay (IANo.GA/1/2011) is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal stands rejected and thesubstantial questions of law suggested by the revenue are leftopen.
Consequently, the connected application for stay (IANo.GA/2/2011) also stands closed.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
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.