PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. WELLMAN COKE INDIA LIMITED
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the substantial question of law raised is squarely covered by a Supreme Court decision. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The appeal questioned whether furnishing Form 3CEA within the due date of filing the ITR is mandatory for computing net worth in slump sale cases.
What were the issues?
Whether furnishing Form 3CEA within the due date of filing ITR is a mandatory requirement for computing net worth in slump sale cases.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 50B(3),Section 260A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd.221 citing376 ITR 456 · 2015 · SC
OD – 16
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax] ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/139/2024 IA NO: GA/2/2024 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2 ,KOLKATA VS WELLMAN COKE INDIA LIMITED
BEFORE : THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 13th September, 2024
Appearance : Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. Mr.Prithu Dudheria, Adv. ..for the appellant.
Mr. Raghav Menon, Adv. …for the respondent.
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 October 3, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, C-Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/444/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2018-19. The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration : “WHETHER furnishing of Form 3CEA within due date of filing of ITR is a mandatory requirement, as per the provision of section 50(B)(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the
correct computation of net worth of the undertaking or division in cases invoking slump sales?”
We have heard Mr. Aryak Dutt, learned senior standing counsel along with Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learned counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Raghav Menon, learned advocate appearing for the respondent/assessee. The substantial question of law raised for consideration before this Court is squarely covered against the revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Maharashtra Vs. G.M. Knitting Industries Private Limited, reported in (2015) 376 ITR 456. Thus, following the said decision, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue. The connection application stands closed.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
S.Das/
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026