<?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 (2) TMI 1504 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299322</link>
    <description>Buy-back of shares made before 1.6.2013 could not be re-characterised as dividend distribution, because payment for purchase of a company&#039;s own shares under section 77A of the Companies Act, 1956 was excluded from dividend under section 2(22)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, and section 115QA applied only from 1.6.2013. The stated tax clarification also treated such pre-1.6.2013 buy-back receipts as capital gains in the hands of the recipient, not dividend. Accordingly, dividend distribution tax could not be levied merely because the shareholder was treaty-protected. The question whether the buy-back price exceeded fair market value was left open and remitted for examination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2021 08:34:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=663494" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 1504 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299322</link>
      <description>Buy-back of shares made before 1.6.2013 could not be re-characterised as dividend distribution, because payment for purchase of a company&#039;s own shares under section 77A of the Companies Act, 1956 was excluded from dividend under section 2(22)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, and section 115QA applied only from 1.6.2013. The stated tax clarification also treated such pre-1.6.2013 buy-back receipts as capital gains in the hands of the recipient, not dividend. Accordingly, dividend distribution tax could not be levied merely because the shareholder was treaty-protected. The question whether the buy-back price exceeded fair market value was left open and remitted for examination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299322</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>