COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA -2, KOLKATA vs. KALYANPUR CEMENTS LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/13/2015HC CalcuttaWBCHCO002062201501 December 2021Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the appeal based on a submission by the Revenue that it was hit by a CBDT circular due to low tax effect. The substantial questions of law were left open.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The appeal raised questions about the allowability of repair expenses for earlier years and the applicability of an exception to Section 73 of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT erred in allowing repair expenses of earlier years in the current year and whether the assessee falls within an exception to Section 73 of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 73

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD – 3 ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE

ITA/13/2015

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-2, KOLKATA VS. KALYANPUR CEMENTS LTD.

BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM

A N D THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date: December 1, 2021.

Appearance : Mr. S. N. Dutta, Adv. …for the appellant

Mr. Avra Mazumder, 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 14th October, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata in ITA Nos. 1396/Kol/2011 and ITA No. 1397/Kol/2011 for the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Income Tax Appellate

2 Tribunal erred in law in allowing repair of plant and machineries of Rs.5,26,46,000/- pertaining to earlier years in the current year though only current repair is allowable as deduction under the head repair and maintenance? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that the case of the assessee falls within the exception to the explanation to Section 73 of the Act though neither the assessee was engaged in the business of granting loans and advances nor the gross total income consists mainly of income which is chargable under the head "interest on securities”, income from house property and income from other sources?

We have heard Mr. S. N. Dutta, learned standing counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr. Avra Mazumder, learned counsel for the respondent/Assessee. Learned standing counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal is hit by the circular issued by the CBDT on account of low tax effect.

3 Recording the said submission, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Consequently, substantial questions of law are left open.

(T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

GH/sp3

More judgments on Section 73

All 521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 73 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →