<?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>2017 (12) TMI 864 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352595</link>
    <description>The High Court interpreted Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, ruling in favor of the assessees and rejecting the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The court clarified that certain payments are taxable only in the hands of the shareholder, aligning with legislative intent. The decision emphasized compliance with tax laws and prevented tax evasion through profit distribution mechanisms other than dividends, in line with established judicial precedents and the Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 17 Dec 2017 18:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=500178" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 864 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352595</link>
      <description>The High Court interpreted Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, ruling in favor of the assessees and rejecting the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The court clarified that certain payments are taxable only in the hands of the shareholder, aligning with legislative intent. The decision emphasized compliance with tax laws and prevented tax evasion through profit distribution mechanisms other than dividends, in line with established judicial precedents and the Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352595</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>