Business reorganisation requires recognition of successor's modified return; draft orders against dissolved transferor quashed and fresh review direct...
Pre-commencement R&D deduction denied where business had not commenced; deeming benefit requires tangible start of manufacture or commercial exploitat...
Priority of set-off: brought forward business losses must be adjusted before unabsorbed depreciation; procedural safeguards required for invoking rest...
Appellant reimported defective goods initially claiming benefit under Notification No.158/1995 but later sought alternate exemption under Notification No.94/1996; Tribunal held an alternate notification may be claimed despite an earlier, different claim, subject to satisfying the alternate notification's conditions, and relied on a prior CESTAT decision with similar facts. Because the record lacks a finding on whether the appellant met those conditions, the matter is remanded for de novo adjudication with directions to observe principles of natural justice and, if practicable, conclude proceedings within three months.
Appellant reimported defective goods initially claiming benefit under Notification No.158/1995 but later sought alternate exemption under Notification No.94/1996; Tribunal held an alternate notification may be claimed despite an earlier, different claim, subject to satisfying the alternate notification's conditions, and relied on a prior CESTAT decision with similar facts. Because the record lacks a finding on whether the appellant met those conditions, the matter is remanded for de novo adjudication with directions to observe principles of natural justice and, if practicable, conclude proceedings within three months.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.