<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (4) TMI 330 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212627</link>
    <description>The court partially allowed the appeal. The first and second issues were remanded to the assessing officer for the assessee to provide proof of actual excise duty payment and substantiate claims of obsolescence. The third issue was resolved in favor of the assessee, allowing 100% deduction for custom duty on software and MRB items.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Apr 2012 18:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186031" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 330 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212627</link>
      <description>The court partially allowed the appeal. The first and second issues were remanded to the assessing officer for the assessee to provide proof of actual excise duty payment and substantiate claims of obsolescence. The third issue was resolved in favor of the assessee, allowing 100% deduction for custom duty on software and MRB items.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212627</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>