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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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