Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2009 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2009 (3) TMI 633 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Addition of loan as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 21,95,21,000 as deemed dividend for AY 2003-04

The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee, a partnership firm consisting of three partners, had taken a loan of Rs. 28,52,41,516 from M/s. Jetair Pvt. Ltd. during the year under consideration. The AO required details of the shareholding of the assessee-firm or its partners in M/s. Jetair Pvt. Ltd. The details revealed that the partners, Shri Naresh Goyal and Shri Surender Goyal, held shares in M/s. Jetair Pvt. Ltd., with Naresh Goyal holding 51% and Surender Goyal holding 7.02%. The AO noted that M/s. Jetair Pvt. Ltd. had accumulated profits of Rs. 21,95,21,000 as on 31-3-2003.

The AO concluded that since the assessee-firm was the beneficial owner of more than 10% of the voting power in M/s. Jetair Pvt. Ltd., the loan taken by the assessee-firm should be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Consequently, the AO added Rs. 21,95,21,000 to the assessee's total income as deemed dividend.

Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 95,78,000 as deemed dividend for AY 2004-05

Similarly, for the assessment year 2004-05, the AO made an addition of Rs. 95,78,000 on account of a loan treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act.

CIT(A) Decision:

The CIT(A) held that the assessee-firm was not a shareholder as per law and, therefore, the loan received from M/s. Jetair Pvt. Ltd. could not be treated as deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. This decision was based on the interpretation that only a registered shareholder could be assessed for deemed dividend.

Tribunal's Analysis:

The Tribunal referred to the Special Bench decision in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Bhaumik Colour (P.) Ltd. [2009] 27 SOT 270, which clarified that deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) can only be assessed in the hands of a person who is a shareholder of the lender company and not in the hands of a person other than a shareholder. The Special Bench further held that the term "shareholder" refers to both a registered shareholder and a beneficial shareholder. If a person is either a registered shareholder without being a beneficial shareholder, or a beneficial shareholder without being a registered shareholder, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) would not apply.

Tribunal's Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the assessee-firm could not be considered a registered shareholder of M/s. Jetair Pvt. Ltd. The shares were held by the partners in their individual capacities and not on behalf of the firm. Therefore, the loan received by the assessee-firm could not be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e).

Outcome:

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, deleting the additions made by the AO for both assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates