9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (1) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... divided family in respect of assessment years 1964-65 and 1966-67, respectively ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that in order to determine the deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, taxable in the hands of the assessee Hindu undivided family, it is the accounting year of the Hindu undivided family which is to be considered and not the accounting year of the company ?" These questions before the Tribunal arose out of the consolidated order, dated August 31, 1973, passed in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 672 and 674(JP) of 71-72. The assessment years are 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67. The karta of the Joint Hindu family (assessee) is Harish Chandra Golecha. Smt. Chandrak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh Chandra Golecha, but by the HUF Therefore, according to him, the provisions of s. 2(22)(e) were not applicable to the facts of the case. The department went up in appeal. It was contended by the department that Shri Harish Chandra Golecha had not been assessed to income-tax as an individual. He had no source of income as an individual. Advances from the respective companies had been received by Shri Harish Chandra Golecha. The dividend income from shares registered in his name belonged to the HUF which is being assessed in the name of Shri Harish Chandra Golecha. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the ratio decidendi in CIT v. Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal [1971] 82 ITR 628 (SC), CIT v. C.P. Sayathy Mudaliar [1972] 83 ITR 170 (SC) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ust be held liable to be taxed in the assessment of the beneficial owner. This court did not decide the question whether a loan advanced to a beneficial owner of the shares can be regarded as 'deemed dividend' within the meaning of s. 2(6A)(e) and the answer given by this court in favour of the revenue cannot be said to extend to this aspect of the question." In the same case, it was also observed (p. 8): " It is only the person whose name is entered in the register of shareholders of the company as the holder of the shares who can be said to be a shareholder qua the company, and not the person beneficially entitled to the shares. It is the former who is a 'shareholder' within the matrix and scheme of the company law and not the latter. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
