Skip to main content

Levy of Stamp Duty on Copies of Instruments executed Outside Maharashtra

While upholding the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, a division bench of the Bombay High Court held that imposing of stamp duty on copies of the Instruments executed outside Maharashtra would not amount to Double Taxation. 

While considering a bunch of petitions, the bench comprising Justice A.S Oka and Justice Vibha V. Kankanwadi rejected the argument that Section 7 read with Section 19 in so far as the same apply to the copies of the instruments are not constitutionally valid. 

Before the High Court, the petitioners impugned the constitutional validity of provisions of sections 3, 7 and 19 of the said Act to the extent it levies stamp duty on the copies of the instruments executed outside the State of Maharashtra. 

The petitioners submitted that the words “a copy of the instrument” was not in the Act at the time enactment and the same was subsequently added by the Maharashtra Act No. XVII of 1993. 

According to them, merely because a copy of the deed or a certified or a verified copy thereof is filed in the office of the Registrar of Companies in Mumbai as per the requirement of Section 125 of the Companies Act, it cannot be said that the original deed was received in the State of Maharashtra. It was urged that even the charging section i.e. further, as per Section 3, it is evident that the stamp duty is chargeable, provided an instrument mentioned in Schedule I to the said Act is executed out of the State and is received in the State.

Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/no-double-taxation-levy-stamp-duty-executed-outside-maharashtra-bombay-hc/16948/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Taxscan+%28Top+Stories+%E2%80%93+Taxscan+%7C+Simplifying+Tax+Laws%29

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more