COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - IX, KOLKATA vs. M/S PARK INTERNATIONAL
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?
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)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026