Case LawHigh Court › Ita/3/2012 Commissioner Of Income Tax, C...

Ita/3/2012 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-Iii, Kolkata v. M/S. Basil Express Limited

High Court 03 Mar 2023 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Ita/3/2012 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-Iii, Kolkata v. M/S. Basil Express Limited
Date of order
03 Mar 2023
Assessment year(s)
2002-03, 2003-04, 2007-08
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Ita/3/2012 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-Iii, Kolkata v. M/S. Basil Express Limited, the High Court (2023) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

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–3 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/3/2012COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-III, KOLKATAVS.M/S. BASIL EXPRESS LIMITED BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 3[rd] March, 2023 Appearance :Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya, 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 January 21, 2011 passed bythe Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A. Nos. 1912 to1914/Kol/2009, 915/Kol/2009 and 1916 & 1917/Kol/2009 relating to the Assessmentyears 2002-2003 to 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2007-2008 respectively. It has been pointed out by the learned advocate representing the revenue thatthe tax effect involved is Rs.1,31,324/- relating to Assessment Year 2002-03,Rs.1,45,674/- relating to Assessment Year 2003-04, Rs.94,681/- relating to AssessmentYear 2004-05 and Rs.5,10,952/- relating to Assessment Year 2007-08 which are farless than threshold limit fixed by the C.B.D.T. This appeal was admitted by an order dated 13[th] December, 2011 on thefollowing substantial question of law : (i)Whether the learned Tribunal committed substantial error in law in notapplying the provisions contained in Section 269SS and Section 269T ofthe Income-tax Act to the fact of the present case simply because theapplying the provisions contained in Section 269SS and Section 269T ofthe Income-tax Act to the fact of the present case simply because the parties are two sister concerns by overlooking the first proviso the sisterconcern do not come within the exception”? 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