<?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>2025 (12) TMI 1725 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784185</link>
    <description>Denial of SEIS duty credit scrip for FY 2016-17 was held unsustainable where export of engineering services occurred in FY 2016-17 but foreign exchange was realized in FY 2017-18. Form ANB 3B permits claiming SEIS for foreign exchange earned in a financial year relating to services exported in the preceding year; hence, receipt in the subsequent year could not be the basis to refuse the FY 2016-17 claim, and the rejection was set aside. Further, exclusion of amounts attributed to travel/transport, inspection, R&amp;D, software, and re-invoicing was erroneous because these earnings formed part of the exported engineering services and, upon foreign exchange realization, qualified for SEIS; the rejection on this ground was also set aside. The writ petition was allowed with directions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2025 09:29:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=874733" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 1725 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784185</link>
      <description>Denial of SEIS duty credit scrip for FY 2016-17 was held unsustainable where export of engineering services occurred in FY 2016-17 but foreign exchange was realized in FY 2017-18. Form ANB 3B permits claiming SEIS for foreign exchange earned in a financial year relating to services exported in the preceding year; hence, receipt in the subsequent year could not be the basis to refuse the FY 2016-17 claim, and the rejection was set aside. Further, exclusion of amounts attributed to travel/transport, inspection, R&amp;D, software, and re-invoicing was erroneous because these earnings formed part of the exported engineering services and, upon foreign exchange realization, qualified for SEIS; the rejection on this ground was also set aside. The writ petition was allowed with directions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784185</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>