<?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>Dividend Stripping: anti-avoidance provision applies to whole dividend; taxpayer bears burden to prove non-applicability.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97782</link>
    <description>The note addresses application of the anti-avoidance rule for dividend-stripping, holding that the statutory phrase &quot;dividend or income received or receivable&quot; covers the entire dividend and is not confined to exempt portions; this suffices to prevent tax arbitrage by permitting loss set-off against partly taxed dividends. It records that the onus to prove non-applicability of the provision rests on the taxpayer and that factual findings and tabulated verifications by the assessing officer regarding purchases, record dates, sales and holding periods were not rebutted. The addition under the provision was sustained and interest consequences follow as consequential determinations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2026 08:23:40 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2026 08:23:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=890920" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Dividend Stripping: anti-avoidance provision applies to whole dividend; taxpayer bears burden to prove non-applicability.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97782</link>
      <description>The note addresses application of the anti-avoidance rule for dividend-stripping, holding that the statutory phrase &quot;dividend or income received or receivable&quot; covers the entire dividend and is not confined to exempt portions; this suffices to prevent tax arbitrage by permitting loss set-off against partly taxed dividends. It records that the onus to prove non-applicability of the provision rests on the taxpayer and that factual findings and tabulated verifications by the assessing officer regarding purchases, record dates, sales and holding periods were not rebutted. The addition under the provision was sustained and interest consequences follow as consequential determinations.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2026 08:23:40 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97782</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>