Tribunals
Summary and Review of Case Laws Decided by Income Tax Appellate Tribunals
Tuesday, 20 October 2015 15:17

Section 2(22)(e) - Deemed Dividend - When the assessee is not a shareholder of the lender company ICD's and advances cannot be treated as deemed dividend - Hyderabad Tribunal

Written by
Rate this item
(0 votes)

Gist

When the assessee is not a shareholder of the lender company the ICDs and the advances to the assessee cannot be treated as deemed dividend at the hands of the assessee

Facts

1. Assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture of automotive tyres

2. During the year under consideration, the assessee company had received ICD of Rs.7.5 crores from M/s. Excel Rubber Pvt. Ltd. being a closely held company

3. According to the Assessing Officer, the said company having accumulated profit, the amount of ICD received by the assessee from the said company was liable to be added to its total income as deemed dividend under S.2(22)(e)

4. The submissions made by the assessee that the transaction involving receipt of ICD being regular business transaction and it being not a share holder in M/s. Excel Rubber Pvt. Ltd., the amount of ICD was not liable to be treated as deemed dividend in its hands, was not accepted by the Assessing Officer

5. Assessee moved to the CIT(A) and following the decision of the Tribunal rendered in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2006-07 deleting the similar addition made by the Assessing Officer under S.2(22)(e), the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of ICD received by the assessee from M/s Excel Rubber Pvt. Ltd.

6. Revenue moved to the Tribunal and after hearing both parties decided in favour of the assessee

Adjudication

Respectfully following the decision rendered by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2010-11, we uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(A), deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer under
S.2(22)(e) by treating the amount of ICD received by the assessee form M/s. Excel Rubber Pvt. Ltd. as deemed dividend.

Cases referred to

1. Bhaumic Colours (P) Ltd., 313 ITR (AT) 146

2. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. C.P. Sarathy Mudaliar [1972] 83 ITR 170

3. CIT Vs. Navyug Promoters P. Ltd. (203 Taxman 618)

4. CIT Vs. Universal Medicare (P) Ltd., (324 ITR 263)

5. MARC Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 555/Hyd/2008 dt. 31/08/2009

6. CIT vs. H.K. Mittal reported in 219 ITR 420

7. Seamist Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO reported in (2005) 1 SOT page 142

Additional Info

Read 12523 times Last modified on Saturday, 13 February 2016 15:25
Taxpundit

Founder & CEO with over 20 years of total professional experience spread across Internal Audit, IT Audit, Enterprise Risk Management, Financial statement audit & Business Finance Management.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/taxpundit | This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Leave a comment

Thank you for reading! We welcome and appreciate your comments, but at the same time, make sure you are adding something valuable to this article. If you have any serious queries, suggestions or anything related to this article, feel free to share them, we really appreciate that.

If you want to give us any feedback or report any errors, you can email your concerns on taxpundit@taxpundit.org and we'll revert back soon.

Recommended Articles

 

Have you done Analysis of any Case? Tell Us About It.

SITE INFORMATION

All content herein is the copyright of Taxpundit. No images, text, or any other content may be, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of Taxpundit.

All Rights Reserved. All Content Copyright.

Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest developments and special offers!

Create your own website as per ICAI guidelines. Plan starts at Rs. 15000/- with Free Premium Membership. Read more
Toggle Bar