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
    PMLA and Predicate Offenses: Deciphering the Scope of Proceeds of Crime under PMLA: A Supreme Court ...
    Resolution Applicant's Eligibility under the IBC: A Balancing Act Between Stringent Rules and MSME P...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Dynamics of Tax Exemption Registrations: A Comprehensive Analysis of ITAT Ahmedabad’s Decision on ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Transfer Pricing Litigation: The Evolving Landscape of Arm's Length Price Determination in India
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Pre-deposit Compliance in Appeals: Judicial Overreach by CESAT
    Revisiting Shareholder Rights in Securities Law: Deciphering the Bounds of Confidentiality in Corpor...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Professional Conduct in Auditing: Exploring the Jurisdiction and Compliance in Auditor (Chartered Ac...
    Comprehensive Legal Analysis of Jurisdictional Challenges and SEBI's Regulatory Framework in Securit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of Revisionary Powers U/s 263: Assessing the Adequacy of Assessment Procedures ...
    Case LawsVAT / Sales Tax
    The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel in Governmental Policy Decisions: Tax Incentives and Public Inte...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maintaining the Sanctity of Search and Seizure Procedures: Emphasizing the rigorous compliance with ...
    The Confluence of Insolvency and Limitation Laws: Insights from a NCLAT Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analyzing the Tax Implications of Cross-Border Payments: Recognizing the payments as either 'Royalty...
    Case LawsCustoms
    A Judicial Perspective on Duty Assessment and Procedural Fairness in Customs Law: Validity of CBIC C...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Non-Delegability of Discretionary Powers in Income Tax Assessments: Administrative Discretion in Spe...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Domain Registration Services in Godaddy.Com LLC Case: Tax Implications for Digital Serv...
    Reinforcing Fair Administrative Processes in GST Registration Cancellation: An In-Depth Case Study
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Arbitration Conundrum: Enforceability of Unstamped Agreements
    Case LawsVAT / Sales Tax
    Reassessing Tax Penalties: HDFC Bank's Challenge under the DVAT Act
    Input Tax Credit Eligibility under GST Legislation: Time-Bound Compliance in GST ITC Cases
❯❯
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 LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Proceeds of crime: PMLA targets handling of tainted assets even where the person is not named in the predicate offence, scope narrowed for conspiracies.
    Existence of proceeds of crime is a prerequisite for an offence under the PMLA and must be derived from a scheduled offence; the PMLA reaches persons who handle, conceal or possess tainted proceeds even if not named in the predicate offence. Conspiracy under Section 120B becomes a scheduled offence only when the conspiracy aims to commit an offence already listed in the PMLA Schedule, narrowing scheduled-offence scope. Property acquired prior to the scheduled offence cannot be treated as proceeds, whereas disputed acquisitions require trial determination of their linkage to tainted funds.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Resolution applicant eligibility under Section 29A clarified; MSME exemption under Section 240A applies at plan submission stage.
    Whether a resolution applicant is disqualified under Section 29A depends on the ineligibility criteria and the timing of assessment; the operative date for eligibility is the submission of the resolution plan, and Section 240A provides an MSME-targeted exemption from certain disqualifications to protect continuity and livelihoods.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax exemption registration: tribunal ordered reconsideration where delay arose from bona fide reliance on provisional registration and circulars.
    The Tribunal held that rejection of the final registration application under Section 80G for being time barred was improper where the Commissioner did not consider administrative circulars extending filing timelines and the trust's bona fide reliance on provisional registration; the ITAT set aside the order and directed reconsideration with an opportunity to be heard.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Arm's Length Principle enforcement: comparables, functional profiling, and admissibility of additional evidence determine transfer pricing outcomes.
    Dispute concerns determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for international transactions, focusing on comparable selection, adjustments for functional differences, and functional profiling's effect on ALP reliability. The Tribunal also deals with the admissibility of additional evidence on appeal and scrutiny of changes in benchmarking approaches across assessment years, stressing contemporaneous, consistent documentation and justification for methodological changes while balancing procedural finality and factual completeness.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit requirement undermined by tribunal restoration without compliance, raising jurisdictional and laches concerns in excise appeals procedure scrutiny.
    The Tribunal's restoration and allowance of excise appeals without a prior pre-deposit requirement raises whether a lower tribunal may waive mandatory pre-deposit obligations and whether such action aligns with supervisory limits imposed by higher court directives and doctrines like functus officio and res judicata.
    Case LawsSEBI
    Show AI Summary
    Shareholder access to confidential corporate documents affirmed where confidentiality is overstretched, strengthening minority investor protections.
    Minority shareholders are entitled to access corporate documents where confidentiality claims are overstated; confidentiality and privilege cannot be used to withhold information necessary for assessing compliance with securities law. SEBI's settlement framework cannot shield material information from shareholder scrutiny; regulatory processes must balance investigatory integrity with transparency and natural justice. Non compliance with Minimum Public Shareholding norms undermines market integrity and minority rights, and settlements of serious violations require sufficient transparency to protect investor interests.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective jurisdiction of regulator challenged; effect on auditor liability, standards compliance and sanctions under companies law.
    Allegations of professional misconduct assert auditors failed to comply with statutory audit obligations, disclose material facts, exercise due diligence, obtain necessary information, and identify departures from accepted audit procedures. Appellants challenge the regulator's retrospective jurisdiction, invoke constitutional protection against retrospective penalization, and allege procedural breaches of natural justice; the regulator maintains jurisdiction, contends it afforded hearing opportunities, and asserts substantive non compliance with Standards on Auditing.
    Case LawsSEBI
    Show AI Summary
    Territorial jurisdiction disputes in securities cases shape venue decisions and challenge regulatory settlement revocations and discretion.
    Disputes over venue in securities enforcement pivot on territorial jurisdiction and forum non-conveniens, using cause of action and convenience factors to determine appropriate forum. SEBI's settlement regime under the SEBI (Settlement Proceedings) Regulation 2018 and the regulator's power to revoke settlements raise questions about regulatory discretion, enforceability of negotiated resolutions, and implications for corporate governance and market integrity, while High Courts' supervisory role under Article 226 intersects with statutory enforcement mechanisms.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisionary powers under Section 263 limited where assessment thoroughly examined transactions and no specific error is shown.
    Scope of revisionary powers under Section 263 is limited where the original assessment shows a detailed examination and allowance of losses; direction for re-examination without specific findings of error prejudicial to revenue is insufficient. Transactions integral to business and carried out as hedging do not fall within the definition of speculative transactions under Section 43(5).
    Case LawsVAT / Sales Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Promissory estoppel prevents withdrawal of promised tax incentives for industrial units that invested in reliance on them.
    The dispute concerns whether the State could withdraw tax incentives by reclassifying areas and thereby affect units that invested relying on those incentives. Applying promissory estoppel, the court determined that promises inducing substantive investment could not be retracted to the detriment of the beneficiaries during the promised exemption period, balancing that protection against the State's public interest prerogative and subsequent structural tax reform.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search and seizure procedural compliance: satisfaction note requirement under section 153C governs validity of assessments.
    Assessments against persons other than the searched individual require a recorded satisfaction by the assessing officer that seized assets or documents belong to that other person; absence of a satisfaction note in the searched person's file invalidates consequential assessments under the search-derived assessment provisions. Determination of the applicable assessment years hinges on whether the assessment period is tied to the date of search, the date satisfaction is recorded, or the date seized material is received, requiring harmonious construction to align enforcement with taxpayer protections.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation in insolvency: admissibility requires established debt and default and bars further merits inquiry at admission.
    Where a claim establishes debt and default and the petition is within limitation, the Tribunal's role at the admission stage is limited to admitting the corporate insolvency resolution process without undertaking an extensive merits inquiry into the underlying debt or default.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Characterisation of cross-border payments as royalty or service fees determines withholding obligations under tax treaty and domestic law.
    Characterisation of cross-border payments under the Income Tax Act and the India-USA DTAA focused on whether payments to a US non-resident constituted royalty or fees for included services under section 9(1)(vii) and Article 12, whether TDS obligations arose, and whether sections 201(1) and 201(1A) could be invoked; the Karnataka High Court and ITAT concluded the payments were not royalty/fees for included services, services were rendered outside India, the payee lacked an Indian permanent establishment, and therefore withholding obligations did not arise.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural fairness in customs law limits administrative conditions on provisional release, ensuring statutory discretion and fair hearing.
    The court evaluated whether the impugned Circular and order unlawfully limited the adjudicating authority's statutory discretion by imposing conditions on provisional release, and whether those measures violated principles of natural justice; it emphasised that executive instructions may supplement but cannot supplant statutory provisions and that administrative actions must preserve statutory discretion and fair hearing requirements.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Non-delegability of discretionary powers: extension of tax audit report time must be granted by assessing officer, not delegate.
    The power to order a special audit and to extend the timeframe for submission of the audit report is vested in the Assessing Officer and must be exercised by that officer alone; administrative convenience cannot justify delegation to the Commissioner. An extension granted by the Commissioner, even if prompted by the AO's recommendation, is inconsistent with the statutory scheme and can render subsequent assessment orders vulnerable to being barred by limitation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterization of domain registration fees requires a transfer of proprietary or use rights; mere registrar facilitation does not qualify.
    Whether fees for domain name registration qualify as royalty depends on whether the registrar transfers a proprietary or right-to-use interest; a registrar acting as intermediary under its accreditation agreement that disclaims ownership and does not convey exclusive or transferable rights does not convert registration fees into royalty.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in GST registration: deficient show cause notices require reconsideration and a fresh opportunity to respond.
    Cancellation of GST registration on grounds such as fraud or suppression must comply with natural justice; a show cause notice lacking specific allegations and a decision that does not consider the taxpayer's response constitutes procedural deficiency, necessitating administrative reconsideration with a reasoned notice that permits an adequate reply.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Arbitration agreement enforceability tested against stamp duty compliance, affecting admissibility and tribunal jurisdiction.
    The central issue is whether an arbitration agreement in an unstamped instrument is enforceable, engaging the Arbitration Act, Stamp Act and Contract Act and asking if courts must examine only the existence of an arbitration clause or also its validity when stamp duty non compliance is alleged. The text contrasts lines of authority treating non stamping as either a jurisdictional bar that voids enforceability or a curable defect affecting admissibility, and highlights statutory mechanisms for stamping, impoundment, and remediation while mapping the practical consequences for arbitration access and enforcement.
    Case LawsVAT / Sales Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty proportionality: penalties require deceptive conduct and mens rea before applying to disputed tax assessments.
    The decision analyzes penalties under the DVAT framework in relation to sales of repossessed vehicles, stressing that taxability remained unsettled and that penalties require conduct that is false, misleading, or deceptive. It highlights that mens rea is central to quasi criminal tax penalties and that proportionality and reasoned discretion are prerequisites to lawful penal levies; absent those elements, penalty imposition lacks statutory support.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit time limits require strict compliance with statutory filing conditions, not relaxation for business constraints.
    The court construes Input Tax Credit as a concession contingent on strict compliance with statutory prerequisites, holding that time-bound procedural conditions operate as substantive preconditions to claiming ITC. The non-obstante clause is given a limited operative scope and does not nullify mandatory temporal conditions; established principles of tax-statute interpretation require literal application of the scheme and adherence to filing timelines despite commercial hardships.

    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

      Removing dividend distribution tax (DDT) and moving to classical system of taxing dividend in the hands of shareholders/unit holders.

      1 February, 2020

      Contents
      Rules & Regulations
      Plus +
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Budget 2020-21 + FINANCE BILL, 2020

      Removing dividend distribution tax (DDT) and moving to classical system of taxing dividend in the hands of shareholders/unit holders.

      Section 115-O provides that, in addition to the income-tax chargeable in respect of the total income of a domestic company, any amount declared, distributed or paid by way of dividends shall be charged to additional income-tax at the rate of 15 per cent. The tax so paid by the company (called DDT) is treated as the final payment of tax in respect of the amount declared, distributed or paid by way of dividend. Such dividend referred to in section 115-O is exempt in the hands of shareholders under clause (34) of section 10. In case of business trust, specific exemption is provided under sub-section (7) of section 115-O, subject to certain conditions. Similarly, exemption is provided for distributed profits of a unit of an International Financial Service Centre, on fulfilment of certain conditions, under sub-section (8) of section 115-O.

      Similarly under section 115R, specified companies and Mutual Funds are liable to pay additional income-tax at the specified rate on any amount of income distributed by them to its unit holders. Such income is then exempt in the hands of unit holders under clause (35) of section 10.

      The incidence of tax is, thus, on the payer company/Mutual Fund and not on the recipient, where it should normally be.

      The dividend is income in the hands of the shareholders and not in the hands of the company. The incidence of the tax should therefore, be on the recipient. Moreover, the present provisions levy tax at a flat rate on the distributed profits, across the board irrespective of the marginal rate at which the recipient is otherwise taxed. The provisions are hence, considered, iniquitous and regressive. The present system of taxation of dividend in the hands of company/ mutual funds was reintroduced by the Finance Act, 2003 (with effect from the assessment year 2004-05) since it was easier to collect tax at a single point and the new system was leading to increase in compliance burden. However, with the advent of technology and easy tracking system available, the justification for current system of taxation of dividend has outlived itself.

      In view of above, it is proposed to carry out amendments so that dividend or income from units are taxable in the hands of shareholders or unit holders at the applicable rate and the domestic company or specified company or mutual funds are not required to pay any DDT. It is also proposed to provide that the deduction for expense under section 57 of the Act shall be maximum 20 per cent of the dividend or income from units. Therefore, it is proposed to-

      (i) amend section 115-O to provide that dividend declared, distributed or paid after 1st April, 2003, but on or before 31st March, 2020 shall be covered under the provision of this section.

      (ii) amend clause (34) of section 10 to provide that the provision of this clause shall not apply to any income, by way of dividend, received on or after 1st April, 2020.

      (iii) amend section 115R to provide that the income distributed on or before 31st March, 2020 shall only be covered under the provision of this section.

      (iv) amend clause (35) of section 10 to provide that the provision of this clause shall not apply to any income, in respect of units, received on or after 1st April, 2020.

      (v) amend clause (23FC) of section 10 so that all dividends received or receivable by business trust from a special purpose vehicle is exempt income under this clause.

      (vi) amend clause (23FD) of section 10 to exclude dividend income received by a unit holder from business trust from the exemption so that the dividend income is taxable in the hand of unit holder of the business trust.

      (vii) amend sub-section (3) of section 115UA to delete reference to sub-clause (a) so that distributed income of the nature as referred to in clause (23FC) or clause (23FCA) of section 10 shall be deemed to be income of the unit holder and shall be charged to tax as income of the previous year. Thus dividend income distributed by a special purpose vehicle to business trust would be taxed in the hands of unit holder.

      (viii) remove reference of section 115-O dividend income in various sections like section 57, section 115A, section 115AC, section 115ACA, section 115AD and section 115C.

      (ix) remove the opening line of clause (23D) of section 10, as mutual fund no longer required to pay additional tax.

      (x) insert new section 80M as it existed before it removal by the Finance Act, 2003 to remove the cascading affect, with a change that set off will be allowed only for dividend distributed by the company one month prior to the due date of filing of return, in place of due date of filing return earlier.

      (xi) amend section 115BBDA which taxes dividend income in excess of ten lakh rupee in the hands of shareholder at ten per cent., to only dividend declared, distributed or paid by a domestic company on or before the 31st day of March, 2020.

      (xii) amend section 57 to provide that no deduction shall be allowed from dividend income, or income in respect of units of mutual fund or specified company, other than deduction on account of interest expense and in any previous year such deduction shall not exceed twenty per cent. of the dividend income or income from units included in the total income for that year without deduction under section 57.

      (xiii) amend section 194 to include dividend for tax deduction. At the same time the rates of ten per cent. is proposed to be prescribed and threshold is proposed to be increased from ₹ 2,500/- to ₹ 5,000/- for dividend paid other than cash. Further, at present the mode of payment is given as “an account payee cheque or warrant”. It is proposed to change this to any mode.

      (xiv) amend section 194LBA to provide for tax deduction by business trust on dividend income paid to unit holder, at the rate of ten per cent. for resident. For non-resident, it would be 5 per cent for interest and ten per cent. for dividend.

      (xv) insert a new section 194K to provide that any person responsible for paying to a resident any income in respect of units of a Mutual Fund specified under clause (23D) of section 10 or units from the administrator of the specified undertaking or units from the specified company shall at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof by any mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income-tax there on at the rate of ten per cent. It may also be provided for threshold limit of ₹ 5,000/- so that income below this amount does not suffer tax deduction. It is also proposed to defined “Administrator”, “specified company”, as already defined in clause (35) of section 10. It is also proposed to define “specified undertaking” as in clause (i) of section 2 of the Unit Trust of India (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 2002. It is also proposed to provide that where any income is credited to any account like suspense account, in the books of account of the person liable to pay such income, the liability for tax deduction under this section would arise at that time.

      (xvi) amend section 195 to delete exemption provided to dividend referred to in section 115-O.

      (xvii) amend section 196A to revive its applicability on TDS on income in respect of units of a Mutual Fund. It is also proposed to substitute “of the Unit Trust of India” with “from the specified company defined in Explanation to clause (35) of section 10”and “in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode” with “by any mode”.

      (xviii) amend section 196C to remove exclusion provided to dividend under section 115-O. It is also proposed to substitute “in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode” with “by any mode”.

      (xix) amend section 196D to remove exclusion provided to dividend under section 115-O. It is also proposed to substitute “in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode” with “by any mode”.

      Amendments at clause (i) to (xii) above will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years. Amendments at clause (xiii) to (xix) will take effect from 1st April, 2020.

      [Clauses 7,30,40,47,48,49,50,54,55,59,60,62,74,80,81,85,86,87 & 88]

       

       


      Budget 2020-21 + FINANCE BILL, 2020

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax