POWERMATIC PACKAGING PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 5 (2), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 733/CHNY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 July 2023AY 2016-179 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding disallowance of business expenditure and depreciation, finding the lower authorities' decision reasonable. However, it partly allowed the appeal on the deemed dividend issue by directing the AO to exclude amounts already taxed under Section 2(22)(e) in the shareholder's hands.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed business expenditure and depreciation, which was disallowed by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) as the company was primarily leasing its property. The AO also made an addition on account of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(a) for write-off of loans to a major shareholder.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of business expenditure and depreciation was justified, and whether the write-off of loans to a majority shareholder constituted a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(a).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 2(22)(a),Section 2(22)(e),Section 115-O

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS

Pronounced: 12.07.2023

per details of Shareholding pattern as placed on record, it could be

1.

7 -: seen that Shri P. Ravindran was holding more than 57% of shareholding whereas remaining shareholding is held by another 7 members. It is undisputed fact that there is reduction in the asset with corresponding reduction in reserve and surplus which amount to distribution of the accumulated profits entailing release of assets by the company to its shareholders. Accordingly, the assessee has been held liable to pay dividend distribution tax in terms of Sec.115-O of the Act.

6.

Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) observed that (22) "dividend" includes any distribution by a company of accumulated profits, whether capitalized or not, if such distribution entails the release by the company to shareholders of all or any part of the assets of the company. The Ld. CIT(A) also considered the cited decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shashibala Navnitlal v. CIT (1964)

54 ITR 478 which held that to attract the provisions of Sec.2(22)(a), there must be distribution of accumulated profits and it must entail the release of all or any assets of the Company. Considering the facts of the case, the accumulated profits were reduced by the amount of loans written-off. The loans were receivable from a shareholding having substantial shareholding. Therefore, the conditions of Sec.

2(22)(a) were satisfied. The argument that payment of loan was in earlier years was also rejected since the amount will be taxable only

8 -: when the right to repay was extinguished. We concur with the adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) since the conditions of Sec.2(22)(a) were duly satisfied and the provisions of Sec.115-O were attracted in assessee’s case. The decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Jamunadas Srinivas Private Ltd. (76 ITR 656) renders no assistance to the case of the assessee since the decision has been rendered in different context. The argument of Ld.AR that there should be distribution to all the shareholders also do not impress us since it is not the requirement of the law that similar distribution should be given to all the shareholders. Therefore, the arguments thus raised stand rejected.

7.

At the same time, upon perusal of additional grounds of appeal, it is apparent that a corresponding addition has been made by revenue u/s 2(22)(e) in earlier assessment years in the case of Shri P.

Ravindran and the assessee seeks exclusion of the same from impugned addition on the ground that there would be double addition.

We are of the considered opinion that the provisions of Sec. 2(22)(a) and 2(22)(e) are mutually exclusive. Therefore concurring with the same, we admit the additional grounds and restore the impugned matter back to the file of Ld. AO to exclude the amounts already taxed u/s 2(22)(e). The ground raised thus stand partly allowed.

9 -: 8. The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced on 12th July, 2023.

More judgments on Section 2(22)(e)

All 1,757 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(22)(e) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →