<?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>2013 (10) TMI 1553 - KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294978</link>
    <description>A Special Economic Zone unit was treated as operating under a self-contained regime with overriding effect, so the special refund provision applied independently of the general input tax restriction and the unit was entitled in principle to refund of tax paid on eligible inputs. The prescribed SEZ refund rule was construed broadly to cover the appellant&#039;s software development and software application management activities, and the statutory conditions were held satisfied. Refund was therefore allowable on principle, but the matter was remitted for purchase-wise verification of nexus with the authorised business activity and for quantification of the refundable amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 May 2021 15:31:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=644174" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 1553 - KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294978</link>
      <description>A Special Economic Zone unit was treated as operating under a self-contained regime with overriding effect, so the special refund provision applied independently of the general input tax restriction and the unit was entitled in principle to refund of tax paid on eligible inputs. The prescribed SEZ refund rule was construed broadly to cover the appellant&#039;s software development and software application management activities, and the statutory conditions were held satisfied. Refund was therefore allowable on principle, but the matter was remitted for purchase-wise verification of nexus with the authorised business activity and for quantification of the refundable amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294978</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>