Condonation of Delay denied: communication lapses and corporate restructuring found insufficient; prolonged inaction and lack of bona fides led to ref...
Export Support intervention INSIGHT launched to provide non financial capacity building, trade intelligence and pilot support with defined funding and...
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 4826 
Join Channel 
