M/S. V2 Retail Limited (Formerly Known As Vishal Retail Limited v. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), Under Cit-Iv, Kolkata

OD-14 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE IA No.GA 1 OF 2018(OLD NO:GA/1364/2018)GA No. 2 of 2018(OLD NO:GA/1366/2018)In ITAT 185 OF 2018 M/S. V2 RETAIL LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VISHAL RETAIL LIMITED).Vs.THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), UNDER CIT-IV, KOLKATA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM ANDThe Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : January 04, 2022. Appearance:Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, Adv.Mr. Pranav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Goel, Adv. …for the appellantMs. Sucharita Biswas, Adv.…for the respondent The Court : Heard Mr. Bagaria and satisfied with the reasonsassigned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition for condonation ofdelay. Accordingly the delay is condoned. The application for condonation of delay is allowed. This appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the Act in brevity) is directed against the order dated 01.06.2016passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.2413/Kol/2013 for the assessment year 2009-2010. The assessee has raisedthe following substantial question of law for consideration ;- i.Whether the words “any office premises” appearing in clause B ofthe proviso to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 includesany business premises, retail sales outlet/showrooms of the saidwords “any office premises” should be restricted to office premiseswherein administrative work is undertaken? We have heard Mr. Bagaria, learned Counsel appearing for theappellant/assessee and Ms. Sucharita Biswas, learned Counsel for therespondent/revenue. The above question of law which has been framed bythe assessee in this appeal was in fact canvassed by the revenue in theirappeal in ITAT 29 of 2017 against the very same impugned order passed bythe Tribunal. By our order dated 4[th] January, 2022, we have disposed of thesaid appeal on the ground that the said question has been answered infavour of the revenue and there would be no necessity to decide the same asa substantial question of law in an appeal filed by the revenue. In the light ofthe decision rendered in ITAT 29 of 2017 filed by the revenue, this appealfiled by the assessee stands disposed of as having become infructuous. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) pa/GH.