Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G. S. Kulkarni, Aarti Sathe, JJ
Foseco India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle1(1) Pune – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeals challenge tribunal on ddt refund under dtaa. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. assessee paid excess ddt over dtaa rate. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. ddt taxes company profits, dtaa inapplicable. (Para 9) |
| 4. cit(a), tribunal deny dtaa benefit citing total oil. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. colorcon favors assessee; ddt taxes shareholder dividend. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. ddt additional tax on company profits per godrej. (Para 14) |
| 7. section 115-o imposes tax on company distributed profits. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 8. godrej holds ddt not shareholder dividend tax. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
Oral Order : (Per G. S. Kulkarni, J.)
1. These are a batch of seven appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “IT Act”), challenging a common order dated 11 November 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Pune, whereby, the appeals filed by the appellant/assessee challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Pune (CIT)(A) are dismissed. The assessment years in question are assessment year 2014-15 to 2020-21.
2. The assessee has raised the following questions of law:
I. Whether Dividend Distribution Tax (‘DDT’) prescribed
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
