<?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 Distribution Tax and DTAA benefit: conflicting High Court views on whether DDT is tax on company profits or shareholder income.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99295</link>
    <description>On a plain reading of Section 115-O, the Court recorded a prima facie view that dividend distribution tax is an additional income-tax on the domestic company in respect of distributed profits, not a tax paid on behalf of shareholders. That understanding was treated as consistent with earlier Bombay High Court authority and the Supreme Court&#039;s decision in Godrej &amp; Boyce, while the contrary view in Colorcon Asia that DDT is tax on the shareholder&#039;s dividend income, attracting DTAA benefit, created a direct conflict between coordinate Benches. Because the issue involved a clear cleavage of opinion on the nature of DDT and treaty entitlement, the appeals were not decided on merits and were referred to a Larger Bench.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:16:36 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:16:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=898953" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Dividend Distribution Tax and DTAA benefit: conflicting High Court views on whether DDT is tax on company profits or shareholder income.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99295</link>
      <description>On a plain reading of Section 115-O, the Court recorded a prima facie view that dividend distribution tax is an additional income-tax on the domestic company in respect of distributed profits, not a tax paid on behalf of shareholders. That understanding was treated as consistent with earlier Bombay High Court authority and the Supreme Court&#039;s decision in Godrej &amp; Boyce, while the contrary view in Colorcon Asia that DDT is tax on the shareholder&#039;s dividend income, attracting DTAA benefit, created a direct conflict between coordinate Benches. Because the issue involved a clear cleavage of opinion on the nature of DDT and treaty entitlement, the appeals were not decided on merits and were referred to a Larger Bench.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:16:36 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99295</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>