<?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>2021 (5) TMI 1095 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470117</link>
    <description>Input tax rebate was available where the challenge to the genuineness of transactions with the selling dealer was governed by an earlier Division Bench ruling on the same substantial questions of law. The appellate finding allowing the rebate was not disturbed. The substantial questions were answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, confirming entitlement to claim input tax rebate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 17:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=912059" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (5) TMI 1095 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470117</link>
      <description>Input tax rebate was available where the challenge to the genuineness of transactions with the selling dealer was governed by an earlier Division Bench ruling on the same substantial questions of law. The appellate finding allowing the rebate was not disturbed. The substantial questions were answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, confirming entitlement to claim input tax rebate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470117</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>