ID: F2J-C-2659 Court: Calcutta High Court Case number: ITAT No. 21 of 2011 Decision date: 2011-02-22 DISMISSED
Finin2min decision brief
Calcutta High Court ruling in ITAT No. 21 of 2011. Operative-order extract: In default, the appeal will stand dismissed.
Why this ruling matters
This page provides the complete searchable court text, source provenance and operative-order context for a current income-tax ruling. Application depends on the assessment year, statutory text and binding jurisdiction.
Editorial control: The complete court text below controls. Later appellate history is marked Check required and has not been inferred.
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xxi vs Kavita Chug on 22 February, 2011
Author: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
Bench: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
ITAT No. 21 of 2011
GA No. 298 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction
[Income Tax]
ORIGINAL SIDE
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XXI, KOLKATA
Versus
KAVITA CHUG
For Appellant : Mr. Shekhar B. Saraf, Advocate
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE BHATTACHARYA
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DR. SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI
Date : 22nd February, 2011.
This appeal will be heard on the following substantial question
of law:
"Whether the learned Tribunal below was justified in quashing
the order passed by the Income Tax Commissioner (Appeal) and thereby
deleting the addition done by the assessing officer in terms of Section
40A(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the true scope of hire of
vehicle by a transporter who has no vehicle of his own yet doing the business
of transportation."
2
Let notice of this appeal be served by the department on the
respondent on usual course.
Let requisite number of informal paper book containing all relevant papers used before the authority below be filed within two months from date. In default, the appeal will stand dismissed.
Liberty to mention after filing of paper book for inclusion in the hearing list.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(BHATTACHARYA, J.) (DR. SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI, J.) sm AR[CR]
Practitioner verification checklist
Confirm the assessment year and the statutory version considered.
Separate the binding ratio from fact-specific findings and procedural directions.
Check territorial jurisdiction, appealability and any later stay, review or reversal.
Reconcile cited sections and monetary thresholds with the law applicable to the user’s period.
Questions answered
What did the court decide?
Calcutta High Court ruling in ITAT No. 21 of 2011. Operative-order extract: In default, the appeal will stand dismissed.
Which case and court does this page cover?
ITAT No. 21 of 2011, decided by Calcutta High Court on 2011-02-22.
Is the complete judgment available?
Yes. The complete searchable public court text appears on this page and in the downloadable local reference PDF.
What should be checked before relying on this ruling?
Verify the assessment year, applicable statutory text, territorial and appellate jurisdiction, and any later appeal, review, stay or contrary binding authority.