Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2, Kolkata v. M/S. West Bengal Agro Industries Corporation Ltd
High Court
04 Jan 2021 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2, Kolkata v. M/S. West Bengal Agro Industries Corporation Ltd
Date of order
04 Jan 2021
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2, Kolkata v. M/S. West Bengal Agro Industries Corporation Ltd, the High Court (2021) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Accordingly we dismiss the appeal (ITA 45 of 2020) and theconnected application (GA No.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
OD6
IA No. GA. 2 of 2020GA No. 317 of 2020ITA No. 45 of 2020IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONORIGINAL SIDE
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 2, KolkataVersusM/s. West Bengal Agro Industries Corporation Ltd.
Before:The Hon'ble Justice I. P. MUKERJIAndThe Hon’ble Justice MD. NIZAMUDDINDate: 4[th] January 2021
Appearance:Mr. S. N. Dutta, AdvocateMr. M. N. Bandopadhyay, Advocatefor the appellantMr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateMr. Samrat Bagaria, AdvocateMs. Sarmila Das, Advocate
The Court: This appeal is misconceived.
We have perused the reasons given by the learned tribunal inparagraph 4 of its impugned order dated 18[th] July 2018. It has ruled thatsection 43B(d) has no application to the loan taken by the assessee fromthe government. As the loan in question was taken by the respondentassessee from the Government of West Bengal, it held that section 43B(d)was not applicable and allowed the “provision for Rs.15,02,64,000/-“ inrespect of the said loan.
We are of the view that the tribunal has made a very plausibleinterpretation of the said section and applied it to the facts of the case.
There is no question of law involved far less any substantial question oflaw.
Accordingly we dismiss the appeal (ITA 45 of 2020) and theconnected application (GA No. 317 of 2020).
(I. P. MUKERJI, J.)
(MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.)
R. Bose
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.