Genuineness of investment evidence determines LTCG entitlement; non specific regulatory reports cannot displace transaction specific documentary proof...
Page of 4816
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5881 to 5900 of 96301 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
