Regulatory consolidation for investment advisers: SEBI issues master circular consolidating guidance and prescribing compliance, reporting, fees and s...
Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
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.