Principal Commissioner Of Incometax-1, Kolkata v. M/S. Height Insurance Services Ltd
High Court
17 Dec 2021 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Principal Commissioner Of Incometax-1, Kolkata v. M/S. Height Insurance Services Ltd
Date of order
17 Dec 2021
Assessment year(s)
2009-10, 2011-12
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Principal Commissioner Of Incometax-1, Kolkata v. M/S. Height Insurance Services Ltd, the High Court (2021) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: The revenue has framed the following substantialquestions of law for consideration: (i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the caseand on Law the Learned ITAT was erred in granting reliefto the assessee on account of additional operatingexpenses of Rs.29,55,98,684/- disallowed by the assessing...
Decision: Thus, following the said decision, this appeal(ITAT/72/2021) is dismissed and the substantial questions of laware answered against the revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
OD-32
ITAT/72/2021IA No.GA/2/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-1, KOLKATA
-Versus-
M/S. HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LTD.
Appearance:Mr. Debasish Choudhury, Adv....for the appellant.Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv.Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv.Mr. Arnab Chakraborty, Adv.Ms. Pragya Bhowmick, Adv.Mr. Prasenjit Saha, Adv....for the respondent.
BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 17[th] December, 2021.
The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ in brevity) isdirected against the order dated 22[nd] January, 2020 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (the ‘Tribunal’in short) in ITA No.2163/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2009-10.
The revenue has framed the following substantialquestions of law for consideration:
(i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the caseand on Law the Learned ITAT was erred in granting reliefto the assessee on account of additional operatingexpenses of Rs.29,55,98,684/- disallowed by the assessingofficer in original assessment in absence of credibleexplanation for business expediency?
(ii)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the caseand on Law the Learned ITAT was erred in granting reliefto the assessee on account of addition of service chargesfor Rs.17,64,80,000/- disallowed by the assessing officerin original assessment in absence of credible explanationfor business expediency?
We have heard Mr. Debasish Choudhury, learned counsel forthe appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned senior counselfor the respondent/assessee.
It is not disputed before us that the Tribunal hadfollowed the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2011-12in ITA No.2266/Kol/2016. The said order was challenged by therevenue in ITAT No.4/2020 which was dismissed by judgment dated16[th] December, 2021.
Thus, following the said decision, this appeal(ITAT/72/2021) is dismissed and the substantial questions of laware answered against the revenue.
In the result, the connected application for stay
(GA/2/2021) also stands dismissed.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
A/s./S.Das
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