2013 (10) TMI 709 - HC - Income Tax

Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e) The Assessing Officer invoked provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and had made an addition as deemed dividend in the hands of the respondent assessee - Held that - The recipient would be a shareholder by way of deeming provision - It is not correct on the part of the Revenue to argue that if this position is taken, then the income is not taxed at the hands of the recipient - such loan or advance is not an income - Such a loan or advance has to be returned by the recipient to the company, which has given the loan or advance - If the amounts advanced are for business transactions between the parties, such payment would not fall within the deeming dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding deemed dividend.
2. Application of legal fiction in determining deemed dividend in the case of loans or advances to shareholders or concerns with substantial interest.
3. Clarification on the treatment of loans or advances under section 2(22)(e) as dividend.
4. Assessment of whether loans or advances for business transactions fall within the deeming dividend provision.
5. Judicial observations on the Revenue's authority to tax deemed dividend income at the hands of shareholders.

Analysis:

1. The High Court analyzed the case concerning the respondent assessee, who received an unsecured loan from a company in which it was not a shareholder. The Assessing Officer invoked Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating the loan as deemed dividend due to a common shareholder between the companies. However, it was established that the respondent was not a shareholder in the lending company, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

2. Referring to the decision in CIT Vs. Ankitech (P.) Limited, the Court examined the intention behind Section 2(22)(e) to tax dividend in the hands of shareholders. The legal fiction created under this provision expands the definition of dividend, but it does not extend to the concept of shareholders. The Court emphasized that loans or advances meeting the conditions of Section 2(22)(e) are treated as dividend, and the legal fiction should not be broadened to include non-shareholders.

3. The judgment clarified that loans or advances under Section 2(22)(e) are not considered income and must be returned by the recipient to the lending company. It highlighted that if the transactions are for business purposes, they do not fall within the deeming dividend provision. The Court emphasized that corrective measures can be taken by the Revenue to tax such deemed dividend income at the hands of shareholders to prevent income escapement.

4. The Court's analysis underscored the distinction between deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) and the treatment of actual dividend income distributed by companies to their shareholders. It emphasized the importance of interpreting the provisions of the Income Tax Act in alignment with the legislative intent to tax dividends appropriately and prevent tax evasion through disguised transactions.

5. In conclusion, the High Court found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the need for a correct application of tax laws to ensure fair taxation and prevent the avoidance of tax liability through legal loopholes. The judgment provided a comprehensive interpretation of Section 2(22)(e) and clarified the treatment of deemed dividend in cases involving loans or advances to shareholders or concerns with substantial interest.