Once first perpetrated - was it not in IT 'Vodafone' case ? - as an admitted adventure by taxman of unique nature- that is, by way of testing fresh waters though, the ball of controversy keeps, nay rather gets kicked off and kept rolling hither and thither (helter- skelter -!) - but never aimed towards the target of 'goal post', on either side of the football ground.
Despite the referee repeatedly blowing his whistle to caution every player (kicker) that it is,- 'foul' play; and the ball pushed to a penalty corner, for attempting a fresh kick ; so the play goes on and on , with not even a tea break !
Lately reported (this time it is the Stamp Duty authority for a change) HERE>
Stamp Duty Shocker For Consortiums!
xcerpt:
(Controversy, in pith and substance, as narrated) -
..........
< But the Gujarat Revenue Authority claimed total stamp duty payable as RS 54,62,000. Revenue argued that the forming of a consortium and a single mortgage deed instead of several distinct instruments of mortgage was done to evade stamp duty.
The Gujarat High Court disagreed with revenue–it held that stamp duty is payable on instruments and not on transactions. But the Supreme Court set aside the High Court decision. It said the mortgage agreement can ‘safely be regarded as 13 distinct transactions’.>
?! ><><
Key Note: Law experts at large, if equipped and competent , and inquisitive, need to read the full text of the apex court judgment (if / when available in public domain) , in order to appreciate what exactly are the grounds of the decision; the reasoning for reaching the conclusion as embedded in the above underlined portion.
(OPEN TO EDIT)
Latest on MAT for FII:
< Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) (2015) 32 CPT 681
Also (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 398 (Art)
Cross Refer : Previous Blogs (Label- Form v Substance)
Despite the referee repeatedly blowing his whistle to caution every player (kicker) that it is,- 'foul' play; and the ball pushed to a penalty corner, for attempting a fresh kick ; so the play goes on and on , with not even a tea break !
Lately reported (this time it is the Stamp Duty authority for a change) HERE>
Stamp Duty Shocker For Consortiums!
xcerpt:
(Controversy, in pith and substance, as narrated) -
..........
< But the Gujarat Revenue Authority claimed total stamp duty payable as RS 54,62,000. Revenue argued that the forming of a consortium and a single mortgage deed instead of several distinct instruments of mortgage was done to evade stamp duty.
The Gujarat High Court disagreed with revenue–it held that stamp duty is payable on instruments and not on transactions. But the Supreme Court set aside the High Court decision. It said the mortgage agreement can ‘safely be regarded as 13 distinct transactions’.>
?! ><><
flame.org.in/KnowledgeCenter/Stampdutyontransferofshares.aspx
According to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, stamp
duty is payable on instruments. .... case of Mannalal Khetan Vs
Kedanath Ketan (AIR 1977 SC 536) considered ...
Key Note: Law experts at large, if equipped and competent , and inquisitive, need to read the full text of the apex court judgment (if / when available in public domain) , in order to appreciate what exactly are the grounds of the decision; the reasoning for reaching the conclusion as embedded in the above underlined portion.
(OPEN TO EDIT)
Latest on MAT for FII:
AP Shah panel recommends MAT relief to FIIs prior to April ...
Yet to ASK: Why only 'prior to April...' ?!)< Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) (2015) 32 CPT 681
Also (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 398 (Art)
Cross Refer : Previous Blogs (Label- Form v Substance)
No comments:
Post a Comment