PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA PRITHU DUDHORIA vs QUADEYE SECURITIES PVT LTD — ITAT/22/2026
Case under Income-tax Act ,1961 Section 260A. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 04th May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCO0002222026
e-Filing Number
15-01-2026
Filing Number
ITAT/22/2026
Filing Date
17-01-2026
Registration No
ITAT/22/2026
Registration Date
17-01-2026
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ , HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ , HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Bench Type
Division Bench
Judicial Branch
APPEAL SECTION
Decision Date
04th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA PRITHU DUDHORIA
Respondent(s)
QUADEYE SECURITIES PVT LTD
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ , HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
FOR ADMISSION (INCOME TAX MATTERS)
Revoked
FOR ADMISSION (INCOME TAX MATTERS)
FOR ADMISSION (INCOME TAX MATTERS)
FOR ADMISSION (INCOME TAX MATTERS)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-03-2026 | FOR ADMISSION (INCOME TAX MATTERS) |
| 04-05-2026 | Revoked |
| 20-03-2026 | FOR ADMISSION (INCOME TAX MATTERS) |
| 19-03-2026 | FOR ADMISSION (INCOME TAX MATTERS) |
| 18-03-2026 | FOR ADMISSION (INCOME TAX MATTERS) |
Orders
The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's appeal against Quadeye Securities Pvt Ltd for Assessment Year 2011-2012, finding the tax effect of Rs. 1,03,31,960 fell below the Rs. 2 crores threshold. The court rejected the appellant's claim of exceptional category status under CBDT Circular 3.1(h) as the appellant failed to clearly specify which exceptional clause applied, rendering the appeal unmaintainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's appeal against Quadeye Securities Pvt Ltd for Assessment Year 2011-2012, finding the tax effect of Rs. 1,03,31,960 fell below the Rs. 2 crores threshold. The court rejected the appellant's claim of exceptional category status under CBDT Circular 3.1(h) as the appellant failed to clearly specify which exceptional clause applied, rendering the appeal unmaintainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts