Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
561 to 580 of 96408 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
On a plain reading of Section 115-O, the Court recorded a prima facie view that dividend distribution tax is an additional income-tax on the domestic company in respect of distributed profits, not a tax paid on behalf of shareholders. That understanding was treated as consistent with earlier Bombay High Court authority and the Supreme Court's decision in Godrej & Boyce, while the contrary view in Colorcon Asia that DDT is tax on the shareholder's dividend income, attracting DTAA benefit, created a direct conflict between coordinate Benches. Because the issue involved a clear cleavage of opinion on the nature of DDT and treaty entitlement, the appeals were not decided on merits and were referred to a Larger Bench.
On a plain reading of Section 115-O, the Court recorded a prima facie view that dividend distribution tax is an additional income-tax on the domestic company in respect of distributed profits, not a tax paid on behalf of shareholders. That understanding was treated as consistent with earlier Bombay High Court authority and the Supreme Court's decision in Godrej & Boyce, while the contrary view in Colorcon Asia that DDT is tax on the shareholder's dividend income, attracting DTAA benefit, created a direct conflict between coordinate Benches. Because the issue involved a clear cleavage of opinion on the nature of DDT and treaty entitlement, the appeals were not decided on merits and were referred to a Larger Bench.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
