Income Tax : Learn about deemed dividends under Section 2(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, its implications, and key judicial precedents relate...
Income Tax : Gain insights on Deemed Dividends under the Income Tax Act: Understand taxability, TDS applicability, and key exemptions for optim...
CA, CS, CMA : Explore intricacies of deemed dividends in India. Understand definitions, applicable transactions, and tax implications. Uncover i...
Income Tax : The dividend income received by non-resident individuals, including Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPIs) and Non-Resident Indian cit...
Income Tax : Understand the tax implications of bonus shares in deemed dividends. Explore the case of PCIT vs. Dr. Ranjan Pai and its impact on...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that trade advances, in the nature of commercial transactions, cannot be characterized as ‘loans or advanceâ...
Income Tax : Kerala High Court held that court cannot interfere with order of settlement commission if challenge is merely that Settlement Comm...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that entire assessments has been restored to the file of CIT(A) for de novo consideration since assessee was f...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court held that validity of reassessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act has to be determined based on original...
Income Tax : Telangana High Court held that accumulated profits under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act are to be computed taking into acc...
Income Tax : Section 2(22) clause (e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) provides that dividend includes any payment by a company, not being...
Thus, section 2(22)( e) of the Act covers only such situations, where the shareholder alone benefits from the loan. In the instant case the company benefits from the said transaction, it will take the character of a commercial transaction and hence will not qualify to be dividend.
As HUF cannot be a registered shareholder in a company and hence could not have been both registered and beneficial shareholder, loan/advances received by HUF could be deemed as dividend within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act,
Since redemption of preference shares does not result in reduction of share capital as per Sec 80 of the Companies Act,1956 , the redemption value cannot be taxed as deemed dividend as the distribution of profits if at all there may be is not resulting in reduction of capital.
Gujarat High Court held In the case of CIT (TDS) vs. Schutz Dishman Bio-Tech Pvt. Ltd. that there are large number of adjustment entries between the corporates. Unlike transactions of loans and advances, in this kind of adjustment entries, the movement of funds is both ways and the same is more in the nature of current account rather than a loan account.
Kolkata ITAT held In the case of Sri Manoj Murarka vs. ACIT that the AO had travelled beyond the jurisdiction vested on him by the order of the CIT u/s 263 by treating the amounts overdrawn by the son and daughter of the assessee thereby bringing the same to tax as deemed dividend.
ITAT Kolkata held in case of ITO v Smt. Gayatri Chakroborty that where the transactions are mutual in nature or there is benefit or no benefit to each other, then these kind of transactions will not come under the purview of section 2(22)(e).
Calcutta High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Mahesh Chandra Mantri that It is apparent from the language of the Section 2(22) (e) that before any payment can take the character of dividend within the meaning of the aforesaid provision it has to be shown that there were accumulated profits lying
In the case of Shri Kaushik B. Patel Vs. D.C.I.T it was held by ITAT Ahmedabad that routine business transactions/salary payments do not fall under the purview of Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. In this case the assessee’s books nowhere treat the sums received as loan and advances to have been received from the said Company.
ITAT Mumbai has In the case of CIT Vs. Sh. Chandrakant V. Gosalia held that Loan given by Company to its substantial shareholder will attracts provisions of section 2 (22)(e) of Income Tax Act,1961 if the same were not lent in ordinary course of business and mere payment of loan amount would not escape assesse from provision of Section 2 (22)(e).
ITAT Kolkata has held in the case ITO Vs. Piyush Jalan that where lending of money is substantial part of the business of the concerned company and any advance or loan is made by it to a shareholder in the ordinary course of its business
