2023 (10) TMI 271 - AT - Income Tax

Excess dividend received by assessee - Company JEPL paid dividend distribution taxes (DDT) u/s 115-O of the Act, the A.O. treated the additional dividend received by the assessee as taxable on the ground that there is a change in the terms and conditions with respect to the issue of dividend - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT - It is worth to observe that the original terms and conditions are permitted to amend with the consent of at least 75% of the shares holders of these shares, which has been complied in the present case. As per the provision of Section 10(34) of the Act, the dividends which are referred in Section 115-O of the Act, are exempt and as per Section 115-O, domestic companies are liable to pay Dividend Distribution Tax on the amounts declared as dividends, accordingly, any dividend declared/paid by a domestic Company on which DDT has been paid, is exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act. In the present case, the Company paying dividends to the assessee has duly paid DDT and, therefore, the assessee is entitle to treat the dividend as exempt u/s 10(34) - Thus, in our considered opinion, we find no error or infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition - we dismiss the Appeal filed by the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
The issues in this case involve the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of excess dividend received by the assessee, and whether the assessee evaded taxes through a colorable device.

Issue 1: Deletion of Addition of Excess Dividend:
The appellant received a sum of Rs. 27,72,22,273/- on account of dividend from M/s Jubilant Enpro Pvt. Ltd. (JEPL) upon redemption of 14% Cumulative Non-convertible Redeemable Preference Shares (CNCRPS). The AO observed that the assessee received excess dividend of Rs. 8,12,22,273/- and sought clarification on the reason for this excess. The appellant explained that the terms were modified by JEPL to compound the dividend annually at 14% in accordance with the Companies Act. The CIT(A) held that the modification of terms was valid, DDT was paid by JEPL, and the appellant was entitled to treat the dividend as exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

Issue 2: Allegation of Tax Evasion Through Colorable Device:
The Department of Revenue contended that the appellant evaded taxes by resorting to a colorable device, as evidenced by the transaction with JEPL. The Departmental Representative argued for the reversal of the CIT(A)'s decision based on the Assessment Order. However, the Assessee's Representative defended the CIT(A)'s findings, stating that the Revenue's grounds of appeal lacked merit. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of excess dividend, as the modification of terms by JEPL was done in compliance with the Companies Act and DDT was duly paid. The Tribunal also rejected the Revenue's claim of tax evasion through a colorable device, finding no basis to overturn the CIT(A)'s ruling. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed on 5th October, 2023.