<?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>2010 (7) TMI 900 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164873</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s order, dismissing the revision petitions as no substantial question of law arose. The judgment emphasized the adequacy of the assessee&#039;s documentation and the lack of revenue loss due to maintaining a single sale account for different liquor brands.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Oct 2014 20:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354837" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 900 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164873</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s order, dismissing the revision petitions as no substantial question of law arose. The judgment emphasized the adequacy of the assessee&#039;s documentation and the lack of revenue loss due to maintaining a single sale account for different liquor brands.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164873</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>