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 : ITAT Kolkata held that a loan received by a company that was not a shareholder of the lender could not be taxed as deemed dividend...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that an interest-bearing loan can still be taxed as deemed dividend where all statutory conditions under Secti...
Income Tax : Calcutta High Court held that deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) can be taxed only in the hands of a registered or beneficial ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that deemed dividend provisions require evidence of withdrawal from a company in which the assessee is a shareh...
Income Tax : The Bangalore ITAT ruled that once substantive addition under Section 2(22)(e) is sustained in the managing partners case, the cor...
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...
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,
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
