Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Kolkata v. M/S. T.m. International Logistics Ltd

OD-14 ITAT/52/2018IA No.GA/2/2018 (Old No.GA/550/2018)IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKATAVERSUSM/S. T.M. INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 15[th] December, 2021 Appearance :- Mr. Debasish Chowdhury, Adv. … For AppellantMr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwalla, Adv.Ms. Swapna Das, Adv.… For Respondent The Court : This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260Aof the Income Tax, 1961 (the Act, for brevity) is directed against theorder dated 17[th] March, 2017 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No. 988/Kol/2013, and CrossObjection in C.O. No.74/Kol/2013 for the assessment year 2009-10. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law forconsideration :- i) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, theLearned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata,erred in law in deciding the appeal in favour of the assessee bydeleting the disallowance of Rs.14,25,000/- under Section40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of commission paid to the non-executive director by ignoring the fact that the proposedamendment to Section 40 was to take effect retrospectively from1[st] April, 2010 and accordingly, was supposed to apply inrelation to the Assessment Year 2010-11 ? ii)Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, theLearned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata,erred in law in deciding the appeal in favour of the assessee bydeleting the disallowance of Rs.2,76,60,137/- ignoring the factthat the same was an unascertained contingent liability andhence, not allowable as a business expenditure ? We have heard Mr. Debasish Chowdhury, learned StandingCounsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. PratyushJhunjhunwalla, learned Counsel with Ms. Swapna Das, learnedAdvocate appearing for the respondent/assessee. Learned Counsel for the respondent/assessee submitted thatthe appeal will be hit by the Circular issued by the CBDT as the taxeffect is lower than the threshold limit. It is contended that in thepetition filed by the revenue for condonation of delay in filing thisappeal, in paragraph 3 at page 7 of the affidavit the tax effect has beenmentioned at Rs.98,86,038/-. Learned Advocate for the respondenthas provided us a calculation, which also tallies with what has beenmentioned by the revenue in their condone delay petition. Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed on the ground of lowtax effect keeping the substantial questions of law left open. The application being GA/2/2018 (Old No.GA/550/2018) is alsodismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)