Principal Commissioner Of Incometax-17, Kolkata v. M/S. New Alignment Kolkata
High Court
15 Jul 2022 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Principal Commissioner Of Incometax-17, Kolkata v. M/S. New Alignment Kolkata
Date of order
15 Jul 2022
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Principal Commissioner Of Incometax-17, Kolkata v. M/S. New Alignment Kolkata, the High Court (2022) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue(ITAT/365/2016) stands dismissed on the ground of low tax effectand the substantial questions of law as suggested by the revenueare left open.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
ITAT/365/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-17, KOLKATA
-Versus-
M/S. NEW ALIGNMENT KOLKATA
Appearance:Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Adv....for the appellant.
BEFORE:
The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
-And-
The Hon’ble JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK
Date : 15[th] July, 2022.
The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ for brevity)is directed against the order dated 6[th] April, 2016 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, “A” Bench, Kolkata in ITANo.504/Kol/2014 for the assessment years 2010-11.
We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learned standingcounsel for the appellant/revenue.
From the memorandum of appeal we find that the tax effectinvolved in this appeal is Rs.54,98,950/- which is lesser than thethreshold limit fixed by the CBDT.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue(ITAT/365/2016) stands dismissed on the ground of low tax effectand the substantial questions of law as suggested by the revenueare left open.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
(BIVAS PATTANAYAK, J.)
As/S.DasAR(CR)
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