2012 (3) TMI 324 - HC - Income Tax

Deemed dividend - The reduction was made by the CIT(Appeals) on the ground that certain amounts had been repaid and that cannot be treated and regarded as deemed dividend - The tribunal also examined the merits of the case and held that the transactions between the assessee and the East India Impex (Delhi) Private Limited were business transactions and cannot be treated as loans or advance - The fact that the shareholders of the assessee company were also shareholders of the company which had given loan/advances is not suffice and does not meet the requirement of Section 2(22)(e) - Decided in favor of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding deemed dividend
- Application of the law to transactions between companies with common shareholders
- Determination of voting rights and shareholding for invoking Section 2(22)(e)

Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Section 2(22)(e): The case involved appeals related to the question of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer invoked this section based on the receipt of unsecured loans by the respondent assessee from another company where a common shareholder had substantial interest. The issue revolved around whether the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were correctly applied to the transactions in question.

2. Application of the Law to Transactions: The Assessing Officer brought certain amounts to tax as deemed dividend for specific assessment years. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) later reduced these amounts for those years, considering repayments made and other factors. The Tribunal, in the impugned orders, deleted the additions after considering various grounds, including that the transactions between the companies were business-related and not loans or advances as interpreted by the revenue authorities.

3. Determining Voting Rights and Shareholding: The Tribunal's decision highlighted that for Section 2(22)(e) to apply, the minimum prescribed voting rights in the company providing the loan must be held by the assessee. Merely having common shareholders between the companies was not sufficient to invoke the section if the necessary voting rights were not met. The Court referred to a previous decision to emphasize that the payment must be made to the registered shareholder alone, and the beneficial ownership of shares does not alter this requirement. The voting rights of the shareholder are crucial in determining the applicability of Section 2(22)(e).

In conclusion, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the respondent assessee did not have the requisite voting rights and shareholding to attract Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The judgment favored the assessee against the Revenue, dismissing the appeals without any order as to costs.