<?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>2016 (4) TMI 1235 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193224</link>
    <description>Refund rejection orders were set aside where the Court applied the same reasoning used in its earlier order concerning the same assessee and found the present refund claims to stand on a similar footing. The impugned orders were quashed, and the refund applications were restored to the Assistant Commissioner (Refund) for fresh consideration on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2018 10:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=481801" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 1235 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193224</link>
      <description>Refund rejection orders were set aside where the Court applied the same reasoning used in its earlier order concerning the same assessee and found the present refund claims to stand on a similar footing. The impugned orders were quashed, and the refund applications were restored to the Assistant Commissioner (Refund) for fresh consideration on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193224</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>