Case LawHigh Court › Ita/135/2011 Director Of Income Tax [Exe...

Ita/135/2011 Director Of Income Tax [Exemption], Kolkata v. Pailan Educational Trust Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-Ii, Kolkata

High Court 03 Mar 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Ita/135/2011 Director Of Income Tax [Exemption], Kolkata v. Pailan Educational Trust Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-Ii, Kolkata
Date of order
03 Mar 2023
Assessment year(s)
2005-06
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Ita/135/2011 Director Of Income Tax [Exemption], Kolkata v. Pailan Educational Trust Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-Ii, Kolkata, the High Court (2023) dismissed the appeal.

Decision: In view thereof, the appeal stands dismissed onthe ground of low tax effect and the substantial question of law is, however, left open.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

OD–1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/135/2011DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , KOLKATAVS.PAILAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 3[rd] March, 2023 Appearance :Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya, Adv.…for appellant Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv.Mr. Snehashis Sen, Adv.Mr. Abhishek Banerjee, Adv.…for respondent. The Court : - This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated August 6, 2010 passed bythe Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A. No.136/Kol/2009 for the Assessment Year 2005-06. It has been pointed out by the learned advocate representing the revenue thatthe tax effect involved is Rs.41,81,451/- which is far less than threshold limit fixed bythe C.B.D.T. This appeal was admitted by an order dated June 9, 2011 on the followingsubstantial question of law : (i)Whether the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law inholding that there was no violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Income-tax Actby disregarding the fact that both the assessee-Trust and the Trust SylvenCollege of Management Studies are controlled by Apurba Saha, who is thesigning authority of both the Trusts and the trustees are mere employees.”holding that there was no violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Income-tax Actby disregarding the fact that both the assessee-Trust and the Trust SylvenCollege of Management Studies are controlled by Apurba Saha, who is thesigning authority of both the Trusts and the trustees are mere employees.” In view of the fact that the tax effect is below the threshold limit, the revenuecannot pursue this appeal any further. In view thereof, the appeal stands dismissed onthe ground of low tax effect and the substantial question of law is, however, left open. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) Pkd/GH. (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
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