2015 (11) TMI 1611 - HC - Income Tax

Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - Held that - On the basis of the available particulars, categorically came to the conclusion that the assessee company is only a intermediary between the two subsidiary companies and no beneficial interest has been accrued to the assessee company by the advances between the subsidiary companies and sub subsidiary companies. Consequently, the ingredients of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act is not attracted. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, regarding the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. The issue raised was whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the said addition.

2. The appellant, a holding company with 100% shareholding in subsidiary companies, received a notice under Section 148 of the Act in 2012. The assessing officer treated the loans received from subsidiary companies as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, adding it to the total income of the appellant. The assessing officer's decision was based on the utilization of loans diverting them to loss-making subsidiaries.

3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Chennai, allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, disagreeing with the assessing officer's decision. The Revenue then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Chennai, leading to the current appeal before the High Court under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4. The Revenue raised multiple grounds for the appeal, arguing that the conditions specified under Section 2(22)(e) were met, and the loans received by the appellant should be treated as deemed dividend. The Revenue highlighted that the appellant had transactions only with its subsidiary companies, and the loans were utilized without paying tax on accumulated profits.

5. The High Court considered a previous order related to a similar issue for the assessment year 2005-06. In that case, it was concluded that the appellant acted as an intermediary between subsidiary companies, and no beneficial interest accrued to the appellant from the advances between the subsidiaries. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 2(22)(e) were not met.

6. Based on the previous order and the arguments presented, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal, stating that the Revenue failed to show sufficient cause to interfere with the Tribunal's decision. The Court also noted that the matter was pending disposal before the Supreme Court, further supporting the dismissal of the appeal.