Request by Bank for issuance of Look Out Circular for recovery of dues was unjustified as the action of Bank was arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair because the Bank was holding security of value of which was more than the amount due from assessee. Any action of the State if it was arbitrary and unreasonable was liable to be interfered.
Since the maximum period of demurrage and detention charges waivers could be possible for 60 days, beyond which, there was no scope for such demurrage and detention charges waiver in view of the proviso to Regulations 10(l) of 2018 Regulations, since the said two months period had already been given from 18.11.2021 to 13.01.2022, beyond 13.01.2022, assessee could not seek for any such waiver for detention and demurrage charges.
Expenditure incurred would be allowable as deduction, notwithstanding the fact that no business income was earned by the assessee.
VAT exemption was allowable to Rusk also as same as Bread because the raw material as also the manufacturing process for Bread and Rusk was same and thereafter only the moisture was extracted, would not term that activity to be falling within the meaning of manufacturer as used in the Act.
Expenditure incurred by the assessee was not merely philanthropic, but also had a business angle, therefore, deduction was allowable to assessee under section 37.
Since assessee had not brought on record any documentary evidence to show that it had incurred interest expenditure as against the income assessed under the head `income from other sources. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) to the extent of Rs.1,83,003 was confirmed.
Order for grant of suspension of sentence or bail were all interlocutory orders and were not revisable under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act makes every offence punishable under the Act as compoundable and there is no bar on parties to compound the offence. However, at the same time, the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu’s Case regarding imposing graded cost on litigant that the accused should pay 15% of the cheque amount by way of cost also was to be borne in mind.
Neither the submissions during the hearing nor the records of the proceedings before the lower authorities indicated correct segregation of credit taken on ‘input services’ between eligible and ineligible except to the extent that the formula had to be resorted to, therefore, the re-computation of segregation of credit restored to the original authority before whom the accountal of credit taken on ‘input service’ should be furnished by the appellant herein and to which the ratio in the formula was to be applied.
Once the statute provided for payment of interest and the stipulated conditions were fulfilled, the respondent/revenue would be obliged, in law, to pay the interest alongwith the refund. The fact that assessee submitted a communication that it will not claim interest, would not bar assessee from claiming the interest, as the law otherwise allowed for the same.
