CROSS REfer .
http://vswaminathan-swamilook.blogspot.in/2018/03/balance-of-convenience.html?zx=ad4b677c436c31cc
REVISIT Articles: < separate Blog
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Inconsistent decisions: Increasing workload, a higher rate of admission, and constitution of multiple two-judge Division Benches have resulted in a huge increase in the number of judgments handed down by the Supreme Court, which again increases the probability of inconsistencies in judgments. By ARGHYA SENGUPTA
http://vswaminathan-swamilook.blogspot.in/2018/03/balance-of-convenience.html?zx=ad4b677c436c31cc
REVISIT Articles: < separate Blog
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Inconsistent decisions: Increasing workload, a higher rate of admission, and constitution of multiple two-judge Division Benches have resulted in a huge increase in the number of judgments handed down by the Supreme Court, which again increases the probability of inconsistencies in judgments. By ARGHYA SENGUPTA
(comment posted @ https://indiacorplaw.in/2018/03/making-arbitration-consumer-friendly-way-forward-india.html)
pending before the SC in the case of 'Godrej & Boyce' -https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1269729/ (*); in
which the constitutional validity of Sec 14A as original enacted, itself (de
hors its later amendments) has been taken on and is being challenged.
Walfort case @ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47515605/
The real objection of the Department appears to be that the assessee is
getting tax-free dividend; that at the same time it is claiming loss on the
sale of the units; that the assessee had purposely and in a planned manner
entered into a pre-meditated transaction of buying and selling units yielding
exempted dividends with full knowledge about the fall in the NAV after the
record date and the payment of tax-free dividend and, therefore, loss on sale
was not genuine. We find no merit in the above argument of the Department.
Therefore, AS-13 has no application to the facts of the
present cases where units are bought at the ruling NAV with a right to receive
dividend as and when declared in future and did not carry any vested right to
claim dividends which had already accrued prior to the purchase.
SC
Judgment in Maxopps case; the full text of which has been reported in
the Judgment @https://indiankanoon.org/doc/172126674/
This view has already been upheld by this Court in Civil
Appeal No. 2165 of 2012 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. M/s. Essar
Teleholdings Ltd. through its Manager), pronounced on January 31,
2018
Master NOTE:
For copious Feed- input additionally supplied wrt Maxopps SC Judgment , CROSS refer the UPDATE@ -
http://vswaminathan-swamilook.blogspot.in/2018/03/balance-of-convenience.htmlMaster NOTE:
For copious Feed- input additionally supplied wrt Maxopps SC Judgment , CROSS refer the UPDATE
No comments:
Post a Comment