9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1014 - AT - Income TaxDeemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - transaction between the two companies in the form of purchase and sale of land - Held that - There was no such instance of having used the funds by the Directors or the shareholders for their personal use. As established by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) that the funds were used by the company for the purpose of business. Since the funds were placed at the disposal of the sister concern for developing the lands and to deliver the product in time frame, there is no doubt to hold that the amounts were advanced on commercial expediency. It is accepted that the borrowing company has delivered the product to the borrowing company after developing the land and offered the resultant profit the tax. Therefore, we agree with the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) that the transaction between the two companies in the form of purchase and sale of land is purely business and trade transaction and beyond the purview of the deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) We upheld the view of the Ld.CIT(A) that the transaction entered in to by both the companies are business transactions and the revenue could not place any evidence to controvert the same. Business transactions does not attract the rigor of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the act. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Application of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding deemed dividend. 2. Nature of transactions between JHPL and SIPL – whether business transactions or loans/advances. 3. Personal benefit to directors/shareholders from the transactions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Application of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding deemed dividend: The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertains to deemed dividends, arguing that the amounts advanced by JHPL to SIPL should be taxed as deemed dividends in the hands of the shareholders, Sri Madala Sudhakar and Smt. Madala Sakunthala. The AO issued a show cause notice, and despite the assessee's explanation that the payments were made for business purposes and not as loans or advances to the directors, the AO was not convinced and proceeded to tax the amounts as deemed dividends. 2. Nature of transactions between JHPL and SIPL – whether business transactions or loans/advances: The CIT(A) examined various documents, including purchase agreements, sale deeds, and accounts of both companies, and concluded that the transactions were business transactions. The CIT(A) observed that the transactions were made to expand the customer base and support the business of SIPL. The lands purchased by JHPL were developed by SIPL and later sold at market value, with profits offered to tax. The CIT(A) relied on multiple judicial precedents, including CIT Vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd., CIT Vs. A.R.Magnetics (P) Ltd., and others, to conclude that business transactions are outside the purview of Section 2(22)(e). 3. Personal benefit to directors/shareholders from the transactions: The CIT(A) specifically inquired whether the directors/shareholders derived any personal benefit from the transactions. Both directors confirmed that they did not derive any pecuniary benefit directly or indirectly. The transactions were confirmed to be in the normal course of business, with no personal use of funds by the directors. The CIT(A) also noted that the lands were not mortgaged with any financial institutions, further supporting the business nature of the transactions. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal reviewed the material and concurred with the CIT(A)'s findings. It noted that the lands were purchased and registered in the name of SIPL, with payments made directly by JHPL to the landowners. The Tribunal emphasized that the transactions were business transactions, not personal loans or advances. It agreed with the CIT(A) that the transactions were made on commercial expediency and were beyond the scope of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeals. Conclusion: The Tribunal affirmed that the amounts advanced by JHPL to SIPL were business transactions and not loans or advances to the directors/shareholders. Consequently, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) regarding deemed dividends were not applicable. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.
|
