COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - IX, KOLKATA vs. M/S PARK INTERNATIONAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/122/2011HC CalcuttaWBCHCO001817201102 March 2023Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The dismissal was based on the tax effect being below the prescribed threshold limit, rendering the appeal unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal against the ITAT's order concerning assessment years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. The tax effect involved in the appeal was significantly below the threshold limit set by the CBDT.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT erred in law by allowing the disallowance of labour charges for security guards, misinterpreting Sections 40(a)(ia) and 194C, and whether the ITAT's decision was perverse due to the assessee's failure to provide the labour sardar's address.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 40(a)(ia),Section 194C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD–2 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/122/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-IX, KOLKATA VS. M/S. PARK INTERNATIONAL BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 2nd March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. …for appellant The Court : - This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 25.6.2010 passed by the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A. No. 152/Kol/2009 for the Assessment Year 2004-2005 and I.T.A. No.153/Kol/2009 for the assessment year 2005-2006. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate representing the revenue/appellant that the tax effect involved in the instant appeal is Rs.44,94,103/- which is far below the threshold limit as would be evident from the Circular issued by the C.B.D.T. This appeal was admitted on May 03, 2011 and the following substantial questions of law have been framed by the Hon’ble Division Bench:- (i) Whether the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in confirming the order of disallowance in setting side the order of disallowance or labour charges of security guard by totally misconstruing the provisions contained in Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

2 (ii) Whether the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in overlooking the fact that the assessee could not produce even the address of the labour sardar to whom money was allegedly paid and in such circumstances, whether the learned Tribunal below passed the perverse judgment in setting aside the order of the authorities ? In view of the fact that the tax effect is below the threshold limit the revenue cannot proceed with this appeal any further. In view thereof, the appeal stands dismissed and the substantial questions of law framed in this appeal are, however, left open. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) Pkd/GH.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →