<?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>2019 (1) TMI 406 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373241</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act inapplicable to payments made to the assessee and his father. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing the commercial nature of the transaction and absence of tax evasion motives. The Court concluded that the transfer of funds did not constitute dividend income, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2019 07:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=551944" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 406 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373241</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act inapplicable to payments made to the assessee and his father. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing the commercial nature of the transaction and absence of tax evasion motives. The Court concluded that the transfer of funds did not constitute dividend income, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373241</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>