2017 (2) TMI 511 - HC - Income Tax

Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act Advance/loan paid - Held that - The matter is already covered by the decision of this Court in Chief Commissioner of Income-tax -III and ACIT Versus Sarva Equity (P.) Ltd. 2014 (4) TMI 788 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT if the intention of the Legislature was to tax such loan or advance as deemed dividend at the hands of deeming shareholder, then the legislature would have inserted deeming provision in respect of shareholder as well. The legislature has not done so - It is only the person whose name is entered in the Register of the shareholders of the Company as the holder of the shares who can be said to be a shareholder qua Company and not the person beneficially entitled to the shares - it is only where a loan is advanced by the Company to the registered shareholder and the other conditions set out in Section 2(22)(e) of the Act are satisfied, that amount of loan would be liable to be regarded as deemed dividend Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act regarding deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee-firm.

Analysis:
The appellants/Revenue raised a substantial question of law regarding the Tribunal's decision on whether the addition under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act could be assessed as 'deemed dividend' in the hands of the assessee-firm. The provision brings to tax certain payments made by a company to a shareholder or a concern in which the shareholder has substantial interest. The Tribunal held that the addition made under this section could not be assessed as deemed dividend in the present case, despite all the ingredients of the provision being satisfied. This decision was challenged by the Revenue in the present appeal.

During the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants/Revenue acknowledged that the matter was already settled by a previous decision of the Court dated 08.01.2014 in a related case. In that decision, the questions formulated were answered in favor of the assessee against the Revenue. Consequently, the counsel conceded that the present matter is covered by the previous judgment, and as a result, the present appeal should be disposed of in a similar manner.

In light of the acknowledgment by the Revenue's counsel regarding the prior decision of the Court on the same issue, the Court found that the matter was already settled and covered by the earlier judgment. Therefore, the Court decided that the present appeal should also be disposed of in line with the previous decision dated 08.01.2014. This indicates that the Tribunal's interpretation of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the context of deemed dividend for the assessee-firm aligns with the Court's previous ruling in a similar case, leading to the dismissal of the current appeal by the Revenue.