There is delay being caused in Court proceedings by the Central Excise Department as it keeps on changing it’s panel lawyers from date to date. Today, when this matter was called out Sri Praveen Kumar, Advocate informed the Court that though he is also a panel lawyer but the file of this case has been now allotted to someone else.
In view of Section 174 of the U.P.G.S.T. as there is no notification repealing the benefit conferred upon the petitioner under the scheme of the Act, he is entitle to collect entertainment tax as in the past upto 31st March, 2020 and to retain the percentage of it in accordance with the scheme.
On the enforcement of the GST, it got itself migrated for the purposes of GST as a partnership firm but instead of issuing registration as a partnership firm, it has been shown to have been registered as a sole proprietorship.
Non-Speculative Business Loss can be set off against speculative Business Income
Allahabad HC in case of Ashok Auto Sales Ltd v/s CIT held that Vector shipping is not correct preposition of law as held by Honb’le SC in case of M/s Palam Gas Service vs. CIT.
An order cannot be revised by the equally situated or equally ranked authority or by any authority who is not authorised under the law. In the instant case the authorised authority is none else but the Commissioner of Income Tax or Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.
Now it is well settled that as also need of common parlance that an animal feed supplement or cattle feed supplement or poultry feed supplement or balanced cattle feed or poultry feed is actually used as energy nutrients as well as nutrients rich with substance needs for strengthening the body and its development so that a person engaged in such farming may have good yield of cattles and poultry as the case may be.
Anything which can properly be described as income is taxable under the Act unless expressly exempted. Following the above principle, Court held that interest earned by Assessee is clearly its income and unless it can be shown that any provision like Section 10 has exempted it from tax, it will be taxable.
In the present case, the petitioner has not made any representation under Section 13 (13-A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the bank and has approached this Court by-passing statutory mechanism which has been disapproved by the Supreme Court in the case of Devi Ispat Limited and another Vs. State Bank of India and other (2014) 5 SCC 762.
It is held that as the provision of Section 69C of the Act is not mandatory in nature, the Assessing Authority has full discretion either to add or not to add the unexplained expenditure in the income of the assessee based upon sound judicial principles
