2019 (2) TMI 1443 - HC - Income Tax

Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - payments made by the company M/s.Ceebros Property Development Private Limited to M/s.Ceebros Hotels P. Ltd. - HELD THAT - Concurrent finding of CIT(A) & Tribunal is to the effect that no benefit has accrued to the assessee, the credit is the result of a business transaction and is neither in the nature of a loan or a deposit. . Since the assessment of the husband, who is similarly situated as the respondent/assessee, wife in the present case before us, has already been decided in favour of the assessee by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (2016 (12) TMI 1289 - MADRAS HIGH COURT), we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue before us. The appeal of the Revenue, therefore, deserves to be dismissed, following the aforesaid judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
- Treatment of payments made by one company to another as deemed dividend.
- Consideration of contractual obligations in determining deemed dividend status.
- Application of legal precedents in similar cases.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the Assessment Year 2002-03 under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The main issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act concerning the treatment of loans or advances as deemed dividends. The Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that payments between two companies did not constitute deemed dividends in the hands of the shareholder.

2. The Appellate Authorities, including the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, concurred in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) did not apply to the transactions in question. The Tribunal considered the nature of the payments and the relationship between the companies to conclude that the loans did not amount to deemed dividends.

3. The counsel for the assessee highlighted a previous judgment involving the husband of the respondent, where the Co-ordinate Bench of the Court had ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the payments made did not qualify as deemed dividends. The judgment emphasized the conditions required by Section 2(22)(e) to be strictly satisfied for a transaction to be considered a deemed dividend.

4. The Revenue cited a Supreme Court judgment in a different case to support their argument that payments made to a Hindu Undivided Family were treated as deemed dividends. However, the Court distinguished the facts of that case from the present case, emphasizing that the present case involved a Private Limited Company and had already been decided in favor of the assessee in a previous judgment regarding the husband's assessment.

5. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities and the previous judgment related to the husband's assessment. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee, and the appeal was rejected without costs, based on the findings and interpretations of Section 2(22)(e) and relevant legal precedents.