Iii)Whether On The Facts And Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunalfailed To Interpret The Judgement Of Vishakapatnam Special Benchtribunal Namely Meril v. Addl Cit ?Failed To Interpret The Judgement Of Vishakapatnam Special Benchtribunal Namely Merilyn Shipping & Transports Vs. Addl Cit ?

OD–7 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/56/2013 IA NO. GA/2/2013 (Old No.GA/573/2013)THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-XX, KOLKATAVS.THE MAYFAIR HOSPITAL BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 2[nd] March, 2023 Appearance :Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.…for appellant The Court : - This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 30.5.2012 passed by theLearned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A. No. 193/Kol/2012for the Assessment Year 2008-2009. The revenue has suggested the following substantial questions of law forconsideration:- I)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learnedIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in deleting the addition incurred bythe hospital for doctor’s charges, pathology charges, doctor’s fees andCommission payment under Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961?Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in deleting the addition incurred bythe hospital for doctor’s charges, pathology charges, doctor’s fees andCommission payment under Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961? II)Whether the provision can exempt those deductors who make payment toits clients within a previous year but not comply with the TDS provisionsin terms of Chapter-XVII-B out of purview of Section 40(a)(ia) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ?its clients within a previous year but not comply with the TDS provisionsin terms of Chapter-XVII-B out of purview of Section 40(a)(ia) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ? III)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunalfailed to interpret the judgement of Vishakapatnam Special BenchTribunal namely Merilyn Shipping & Transports Vs. Addl CIT ?failed to interpret the judgement of Vishakapatnam Special BenchTribunal namely Merilyn Shipping & Transports Vs. Addl CIT ? IV)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the LearnedIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in allowing unexplained expenditureunder Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961?Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in allowing unexplained expenditureunder Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The learned Advocate for the revenue submits that the tax effect involved in theinstant appeal is Rs.10,72,500/- which is far below the threshold limit as would beevident from the Circular issued by the C.B.D.T. In view of the above, the revenue cannot pursue this appeal any further. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed and the substantial questions of lawsuggested by the revenue in the Memorandum of Appeal are kept open. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)