Ita/22/2010 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata – Xii v. M/S. Midhi Print
High Court
22 Jan 2024 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Ita/22/2010 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata – Xii v. M/S. Midhi Print
Date of order
22 Jan 2024
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ita/22/2010 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata – Xii v. M/S. Midhi Print, the High Court (2024) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 3.In view of the aforesaid, since the tax effect involved in the presentappeal filed by the Income Tax Department is below the limit prescribed underthe aforesaid circular for filing appeal, therefore, this appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE
OD – 23
ITA/22/2010COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA – XIIVERSUSM/S. MIDHI PRINT
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANIHON'BLE JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAYDate: 22[nd] January 2024.
Appearance :Mr. Tilak Mitra, Advocate.….for appellant.
Mr. S.M. Surana, AdvocateMr. B. Sengupta, Advocate…for respondent.
1.Heard Sri Tilak Mitra, learned senior standing counsel for the appellantIncome Tax Department and Sri S.M. Surana, learned counsel for therespondent assessee.
2.This appeal filed by the Income Tax Department relates to assessmentyear 2005-06 in which the tax effect, as stated by learned counsel for theparties jointly, is below the limit prescribed under the Circular No.17/2019dated 08.08.2018 issued by the Government of India.
3.In view of the aforesaid, since the tax effect involved in the presentappeal filed by the Income Tax Department is below the limit prescribed underthe aforesaid circular for filing appeal, therefore, this appeal is dismissed.
(SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.)
S. Kumar
(RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, 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.
EaseValue