<?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>2016 (12) TMI 691 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336046</link>
    <description>The High Court of Karnataka approved the reduction of share capital under Sections 100-104 of the Companies Act, 1956, and Section 52 of the Companies Act, 2013. The shareholders resolved to reduce the paid-up share capital, utilizing securities premium reserves and profits. The Court addressed tax implications, specifically the Dividend Distribution Tax, directing the company to promptly deposit the tax liability with the Income Tax Authority. Both the Registrar of Companies and the Income Tax Department did not object to the reduction but stressed the importance of tax compliance. The Court sanctioned the reduction and required registration and publication to meet legal obligations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2016 15:18:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=451582" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 691 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336046</link>
      <description>The High Court of Karnataka approved the reduction of share capital under Sections 100-104 of the Companies Act, 1956, and Section 52 of the Companies Act, 2013. The shareholders resolved to reduce the paid-up share capital, utilizing securities premium reserves and profits. The Court addressed tax implications, specifically the Dividend Distribution Tax, directing the company to promptly deposit the tax liability with the Income Tax Authority. Both the Registrar of Companies and the Income Tax Department did not object to the reduction but stressed the importance of tax compliance. The Court sanctioned the reduction and required registration and publication to meet legal obligations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336046</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>