<?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>2026 (5) TMI 756 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791554</link>
    <description>Banks were held entitled to CENVAT credit of service tax paid on deposit insurance premium, because the premium was treated as an input service linked to the banking business. The Court followed the Larger Bench view and consistent High Court authority, including Kerala and Bombay, and found the issue no longer res integra. Finding no reason to depart from that settled reasoning, it answered the issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 08:40:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=901649" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 756 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791554</link>
      <description>Banks were held entitled to CENVAT credit of service tax paid on deposit insurance premium, because the premium was treated as an input service linked to the banking business. The Court followed the Larger Bench view and consistent High Court authority, including Kerala and Bombay, and found the issue no longer res integra. Finding no reason to depart from that settled reasoning, it answered the issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791554</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>