9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 316 - AT - Income TaxDeemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - Held that - It is in undisputed fact that assessee is not a shareholder in M/s. Agrawal Galvanising Pvt. Ltd. which has advanced loan of Rs. 1,88,83,665 to the assessee. To bring this loan into the ambit of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e), it has to be established first that the same was given to a shareholder out of accumulated profits. If the assessee company which has received the loan is not a shareholder then fiction cannot be extended on the ground that the directors were common and having more than 10% of voting rights, clause (e) of section 2(22) must be given strict interpretation. See ACIT Versus Bhaumik Colour (P) Limited 2008 (11) TMI 273 - ITAT BOMBAY-E & Commissioner of Income-tax versus Universal Medicare Private Limited 2010 (3) TMI 323 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . Against revenue.
Issues:
Interpretation of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act regarding deemed dividend in the case of an unsecured loan received by the assessee company from another company where shareholders have substantial interest in both companies. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the revenue against an order passed by CIT(A)-6, Mumbai for the assessment year 2007-08. The issue revolved around the treatment of an unsecured loan of Rs 1,88,83,665 received by the assessee company from M/s. Agarwal Galvanising Pvt. Ltd. The assessing officer questioned why the loan should not be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) due to substantial interest of shareholders in both companies. 2. The assessee argued that deemed dividend provisions do not apply as the company receiving the loan is not a shareholder in the lending company. The substantial part of the lending company's business was money lending, and the loan was given in the ordinary course of business. The assessing officer treated the entire loan as deemed dividend based on the nature of advances and lack of interest charged on loans to directors of group companies. 3. The CIT(A) considered detailed submissions from the assessee and referred to relevant case laws to support the deletion of the deemed dividend addition. The absence of a shareholding relationship between the two companies was a crucial factor. The CIT(A) upheld the deletion of the addition based on legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case. 4. The issue was further analyzed by the tribunal, emphasizing the strict interpretation of section 2(22)(e) to determine the applicability of deemed dividend. The tribunal referred to the intention behind the enactment of the provision and highlighted that the loan to a non-shareholder cannot be taxed as deemed dividend. Citing previous judgments and legal principles, the tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to delete the deemed dividend addition. 5. The tribunal aligned its decision with the principles established by the Special Bench and the Jurisdictional High Court, affirming that the definition of dividend under section 2(22)(e) does not alter the legal position that dividend must be taxed in the hands of the shareholder. The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of the deemed dividend addition based on the specific facts and legal interpretations presented in the case. In conclusion, the judgment clarified the interpretation of section 2(22)(e) regarding deemed dividend in cases involving loans between companies with common shareholders. The decision emphasized the importance of shareholding relationships and the specific conditions under which deemed dividend provisions apply, ultimately upholding the deletion of the deemed dividend addition in this particular case.
|
