2017 (12) TMI 61 - HC - Income Tax

Deemed dividend as defined u/s 2(22)(e) - Held that - There is concurrent finding of fact by the CIT(A) and Tribunal that the provision does not stand attracted. Even otherwise the point is covered in favour of the assessee and no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. He drew our attention to an earlier decision of this Court by a coordinate Bench in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Baljit Securities Pvt. Ltd. (2013 (6) TMI 793 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT) wherein held that there are common shareholders who held shares both in Respondent Assessee Company and M/s Rajrani Exports Private Limited lender company . While the four shareholders named above each held 13.54% shares in M/s Rajrani Exports Private Limited, none of the shareholders held 20% shares in the Respondent Assessee Company. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether a sum of ?7,60,00,000/- received as an interest-free loan should be treated as deemed dividend and taxed accordingly under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08.
2. Whether the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to delete the addition under section 2(22)(e) for the assessment year 2007-08 is justified despite the common shareholder holding more than 50% shares in both the lending company and the assessee company.

Analysis:
1. The assessing officer initially treated the sum of ?7,60,00,000/- received as an interest-free loan from another corporate entity as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal both ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that no loan had been taken. The Revenue argued that the case falls within the ambit of deemed dividend as per section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court noted the concurrent finding of fact by the CIT(A) and Tribunal, which did not find the provision applicable. The Court cited previous judgments supporting the assessee's position, including a decision by a coordinate Bench and a Supreme Court judgment, concluding that no substantial question of law was involved in the appeal. The appeal was dismissed.

2. The Revenue sought to challenge the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition under section 2(22)(e) for the assessment year 2007-08, arguing that the common shareholder holding more than 50% shares in both companies should trigger the provision. The senior Counsel for the assessee pointed out the consistent findings of fact by the CIT(A) and Tribunal in favor of the assessee. The Court referenced earlier judgments that supported the assessee's position and stated that the issue was settled law. Citing a Supreme Court decision and other precedents, the Court found no substantial question of law involved in the appeal and dismissed both the appeal and stay petition.