Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Preventing Double Taxation of Corporate Dividends : Clause 148 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      18 April, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 148 Deduction in respect of certain inter-corporate dividends.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 148 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, and Section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961, both address the deduction in respect of certain inter-corporate dividends in the computation of taxable income for domestic companies. These provisions are pivotal in the context of corporate taxation, as they are designed to mitigate the cascading effect of dividend taxation within corporate structures-an issue that has long been debated in Indian tax jurisprudence and policy. The legislative intent behind these provisions is to provide relief to domestic companies from multiple layers of tax on the same stream of dividend income, thus encouraging the flow of investments through corporate chains and fostering a favorable environment for business consolidation and growth.

      This commentary undertakes a detailed examination of Clause 148 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, analyzing its structure, intent, and practical implications, followed by a comprehensive comparative analysis with the existing Section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The analysis also explores the historical context, policy considerations, potential ambiguities, and compliance requirements, providing a holistic perspective on the evolution and future direction of inter-corporate dividend taxation in India.

      Objective and Purpose

      The primary objective of both Clause 148 and Section 80M is to alleviate the burden of economic double taxation on dividends as they move through layers of corporate entities. Without such a provision, the same profits could be taxed multiple times as they are distributed as dividends from one company to another and eventually to the ultimate shareholders. This not only leads to an unfair tax burden but also discourages legitimate corporate structuring and investment flows.

      Historically, the Indian tax regime has oscillated between taxing dividends in the hands of shareholders and imposing a Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) at the company level. The abolition of DDT and the reintroduction of classical dividend taxation (i.e., taxing dividends in the hands of recipients) through the Finance Act, 2020, necessitated the revival of Section 80M to prevent cascading taxation within corporate groups. Clause 148 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, continues this approach, reflecting the legislature's intent to maintain tax neutrality for intra-corporate dividend flows, subject to certain conditions.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 148 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      1. Structure and Scope

      Clause 148 is structured into two main sub-clauses:

      1. Sub-clause (1): It provides that if the gross total income of a domestic company in any tax year includes any income by way of dividends from:
        • Any other domestic company; or
        • A foreign company; or
        • A business trust,
        then such domestic company shall be allowed a deduction of an amount equal to so much of the dividend income received from the aforementioned entities as does not exceed the amount of dividend distributed by it by the date one month before the due date for filing the return of income u/s 263(1).
      2. Sub-clause (2): It provides that where any deduction in respect of the amount of dividend distributed by the domestic company has been allowed under sub-section (1) in any tax year, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of such amount in any other tax year.

      2. Key Provisions and Interpretative Issues

      The provision is designed to allow a deduction for dividends received, but only to the extent that the receiving domestic company further distributes dividends to its own shareholders by a specified date. This creates a direct link between the receipt and onward distribution of dividends, ensuring that the benefit of the deduction is available only when the dividend income is not retained but passed on through the corporate chain.

      The inclusion of dividends received from not only domestic companies but also foreign companies and business trusts broadens the scope, reflecting the increasing globalization of Indian business structures and the emergence of business trusts (such as REITs and InvITs) as important investment vehicles.

      The timing condition-that the dividend must be distributed by the date one month before the due date for filing the return u/s 263(1)-is crucial. It ensures that the deduction is synchronized with the actual flow of dividends and prevents companies from claiming deductions in anticipation of future distributions, thereby aligning the tax benefit with real economic activity.

      3. Ambiguities and Potential Issues

      • Linkage to Distribution: The deduction is strictly limited to the amount of dividends actually distributed within the prescribed time. This could create practical challenges for companies with fluctuating dividend policies or those facing liquidity constraints.
      • Timing of Distribution: The reference to "one month before the due date for filing the return" may create interpretational issues, especially if there are extensions or changes in the due date u/s 263(1).
      • Foreign Dividends: The inclusion of dividends from foreign companies raises questions regarding the treatment of withholding taxes, exchange rate fluctuations, and the characterization of such income under double taxation avoidance agreements (DTAAs).
      • Business Trusts: The treatment of distributions from business trusts may also require further clarification, particularly in cases where the trust income includes both dividend and non-dividend components.

      4. Anti-Avoidance Considerations

      The stipulation in sub-clause (2) that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of the same amount in any other tax year is an anti-avoidance measure, preventing companies from claiming multiple deductions for the same distribution over different years. This is essential to maintain the integrity of the provision and prevent potential tax planning abuses.

      Practical Implications

      1. Impact on Corporate Groups

      For multi-tiered corporate groups, Clause 148 provides significant relief from the cascading effect of dividend taxation. It enables holding companies to distribute dividends received from subsidiaries without incurring an additional tax burden on the same income, provided the onward distribution is timely. This facilitates smoother movement of profits within corporate structures and encourages efficient capital allocation.

      2. Compliance and Documentation

      Companies availing the deduction must maintain robust documentation to substantiate the receipt and onward distribution of dividends, including board resolutions, dividend payment records, and compliance with statutory deadlines. Failure to distribute dividends within the stipulated period could result in the denial of the deduction, increasing the effective tax cost.

      3. Interaction with Other Provisions

      The provision interacts with various other sections of the Income Tax Bill, including those relating to the computation of gross total income, treatment of foreign dividends, and the definition of business trusts. Companies must carefully analyze the interplay of these provisions to optimize their tax position and avoid inadvertent non-compliance.

      4. Tax Administration and Enforcement

      From an administrative perspective, the provision places an onus on tax authorities to verify the eligibility of the deduction, including the quantum and timing of dividend distributions. This may require enhanced scrutiny of corporate financial statements and dividend records, potentially increasing the compliance burden for both taxpayers and the tax administration.

      Comparative Analysis with Section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      1. Structural Similarities and Differences

      A close examination reveals that Clause 148 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, is substantially modeled on Section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020. Both provisions share the same core elements:

      • Deduction for dividends received from domestic companies, foreign companies, or business trusts.
      • Deduction is limited to the amount of dividends distributed by the recipient company by a specified date.
      • Prevention of double deduction across multiple years for the same dividend distribution.

      However, there are certain nuanced differences:

      • Reference to Filing Deadlines: Section 80M refers to the "due date" as defined in the Explanation to the section (i.e., one month prior to the due date for furnishing the return u/s 139(1)), whereas Clause 148 refers to "one month before the due date for filing the return of income u/s 263(1)." The reference to section 263(1) in Clause 148 (presumably the corresponding provision for return filing in the new legislation) is intended to align with the revised structure of the Income Tax Bill, 2025.
      • Terminological Updates: The language in Clause 148 is updated to reflect the new legislative framework, but the substantive effect remains largely unchanged.
      • Scope of Applicability: Both provisions apply to domestic companies, but their applicability to dividends from foreign companies and business trusts is a relatively recent development, reflecting the evolution of the Indian corporate landscape.

      2. Legislative Evolution and Policy Continuity

      Section 80M, in its original avatar, was a key feature of the Indian tax code prior to the introduction of the DDT regime. Its reintroduction in 2020, following the abolition of DDT, marked a return to the classical system of dividend taxation. Clause 148 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, continues this policy trajectory, reaffirming the legislature's commitment to preventing double taxation of inter-corporate dividends.

      3. Practical Differences and Transitional Issues

      While the substantive relief under both provisions is similar, the transition from Section 80M to Clause 148 may require companies to revisit their dividend policies and compliance frameworks, especially in the context of changes to return filing procedures and deadlines under the new legislation. Companies must also monitor for any changes in interpretational guidance or administrative practices as the new law is implemented.

      4. International Perspective

      Many jurisdictions address the issue of inter-corporate dividend taxation through participation exemption regimes or similar provisions. The Indian approach, as reflected in Section 80M and Clause 148, is consistent with international best practices, providing relief for dividends received and onward distributed, while maintaining safeguards against abuse.

      Potential Ambiguities and Need for Clarification

      • Definition of "Dividend": The precise definition of "dividend" for the purposes of Clause 148 (and by extension, Section 80M) may require clarification, particularly in light of judicial pronouncements and changes in the Companies Act, 2013.
      • Treatment of Foreign Source Dividends: Further guidance may be needed on the interaction with DTAAs, credit for foreign taxes, and the computation of eligible deduction in cases involving currency conversion.
      • Business Trust Distributions: The treatment of composite distributions from business trusts (including interest, rental income, and capital gains) may necessitate detailed rules to isolate the dividend component eligible for deduction.
      • Interaction with Other Tax Incentives: The relationship between the deduction under Clause 148/Section 80M and other tax incentives or exemptions available to companies should be clarified to prevent overlapping claims.

      Conclusion

      Clause 148 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, represents a continuation and rationalization of the policy embodied in Section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961, providing targeted relief from the cascading effect of inter-corporate dividend taxation. By linking the deduction to actual onward distribution of dividends, the provision ensures that relief is granted only where the economic burden of dividend tax would otherwise be duplicated. The inclusion of dividends from foreign companies and business trusts reflects the evolving nature of Indian corporate structures and the need to align tax policy with global practices.

      The practical implementation of Clause 148 will require careful attention to compliance timelines, documentation, and the interaction with other provisions of the Income Tax Bill, 2025. While the provision is a welcome measure for corporate taxpayers, further clarifications may be needed to address ambiguities relating to the definition of dividends, treatment of foreign source income, and the precise mechanics of deduction.

      As India continues to reform its direct tax laws, the approach to inter-corporate dividend taxation embodied in Clause 148 and Section 80M strikes a balance between revenue considerations and the need to foster a competitive and investment-friendly corporate tax regime. Ongoing judicial and administrative guidance will play a critical role in shaping the practical contours of this important area of tax law.


      Full Text:

      Clause 148 Deduction in respect of certain inter-corporate dividends.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax