Income Tax : Courts have held that reopening an assessment on identical facts under a different deeming provision is invalid. The key takeaway ...
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 : The issue was addition of deemed dividend under search assessment. The tribunal held that without incriminating material, addition...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income by introducing a new issue not examined by the Assessing Officer. The ruling cl...
Income Tax : The issue was whether incorrect tax treatment amounts to concealment. The Tribunal held that mere wrong classification in books do...
Income Tax : The ITAT reaffirmed that Section 2(22)(e) cannot extend the definition of shareholder to a concern receiving the loan. The deemed ...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that Section 2(22)(e) cannot apply where the assessee held less than 10% shareholding in the lending company. As s...
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...
In Circular No. 19/2017, paragraph 3, the CBDT has also held that trade advances, which are in the nature of commercial transactions would not fall within the ambit of the word advance in Section 2(22)(e) of the Act.
CIT Vs. Madhur Housing And Development Co (Supreme Court) The impugned judgment and order dated 11.05.2011 has relied upon a judgment of the same date by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in ITA No. 462 of 2009 in the case of CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt Ltd . Having perused the judgment […]
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, recently ruled that advances given to the directors of a Company for purchase of land cannot be treated as deemed dividend Under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 since the land is transferred to the company within time.
In the instant case, as mentioned earlier, the amounts received by assessee is nothing but loan / advance from NIPL and assessee is camouflaging the same as a commercial transaction relating to sale of property in order to get over the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act.
Capital reduction is a commonly adopted tool by companies for re-engineering their capital structure. The need for reducing share capital may arise owing to a number of reasons, such as returning excess funds to the shareholders, adjustment of accumulated losses, minority squeeze out, improving EPS, producing a more efficient capital structure, etc. In this article we have analysed the importance to understand the key tax aspects related to capital reduction.
Section 2(22) clause (e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) provides that dividend includes any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum by way of advance or loan to a shareholder, being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares
In DCIT v. M/s. The Hooghly Mills Co.Ltd, the ITAT Kolkata held that shareholding by Subsidiary Company is irrelevant while considering ‘deemed dividend’ liability of Holding Company under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
Though, advance received by assessee company may have been for the benefit of the aforementioned registered shareholders, it could only be assessed in the hands of those registered shareholders and not in the hands of the assseeee-company.
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,
