RAMESHWAR LAL SANWARMAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ASSAM
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Supreme Court held that the Revenue's arguments were fallacious. The Court clarified that its earlier decision in Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal did not decide the question of whether loans advanced to a beneficial owner could be regarded as 'deemed dividend' under Section 2(6A)(e), as the Revenue had only challenged the part of the High Court's decision concerning taxation in the registered shareholder's hands. The Court affirmed that the principle of taxing dividends in the hands of the beneficial owner applies to 'deemed dividends' as well. However, it reiterated the correctness of the decision in C.I.T. v. Sarathy Mudaliar, which held that Section 2(6A)(e) refers to a 'shareholder' as a registered shareholder. Therefore, a loan advanced to a beneficial owner who is not a registered shareholder does not fall within the mischief of the section. Since the loans in this case were advanced to the business concerns of the beneficial owner (HUF) and not to the registered shareholder, they could not be regarded as loans advanced to a 'shareholder' within the meaning of Section 2(6A)(e). The Court answered the first question in favour of the assessee on this aspect, finding no conflict between the two cited Supreme Court decisions. The other questions were not considered as they became unnecessary.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), beneficially owned shares in a private limited company, though these shares were registered in the name of its Karta. For the assessment year 1956-57, the company advanced loans from its accumulated profits to three business concerns owned by the assessee. The Income Tax Officer treated these loans as 'deemed dividend' under Section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, considering the HUF as the beneficial owner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this view. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the assessee's contentions that it was not the registered owner and that loans could only be taxed in the Karta's hands. The High Court, answering two out of six questions, held that loans could not be treated as 'deemed dividend' in the assessee's hands as 'shareholder' meant only the registered owner, and even if deemed dividend, it could only be taxed in the registered shareholder's hands. The assessment was set aside. The Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging only the part that deemed dividend could only be taxed in the registered shareholder's hands.
What were the issues?
1. Whether loans advanced by a private company to the business concerns of a beneficial owner of shares, where the shares are registered in the name of the Karta of the HUF, can be treated as 'deemed dividend' under Section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, in the hands of the beneficial owner (the HUF). Assessee's contentions: - The loans could not be taxed as 'deemed dividend' because the assessee was not the registered owner of the shares, relying on C.I.T. v. Sarathy Mudaliar (83 I.T.R. 170). - Assuming they could be treated as 'deemed dividend', they could only be taxed in the hands of the Karta. Revenue's contentions: - A previous decision in Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal (82 I.T.R. 628) answered the reference in favour of the Revenue and was final, making Sarathy Mudaliar's case unavailable. - Although the present question was not specifically considered in the earlier case, it was impliedly decided against the assessee. - The decision in Sarathy Mudaliar's case was incorrect and should be referred to a larger bench.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 2(6A)(e)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 .., \ RAMESHW AR LAL SANWARMAL v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ASSAM December 5, 1979 [P. N. BHAGWATI AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] 369 Jnd~an Income Tax Act 1922-Section 2(6A) (e)-Scope of-Shares in a company registered i'n the name of Karta of HUF-Company advanced loans to business co11ctrns of HUF-/oans--if "deemed dividend".
The assessee, a liindu Undivided Family, owned certain Shares in a private A 8 limited company in which the public \Vere not substantially interested. Though C the shares were beneficially owned by the Hindu Undivided Family, they stood registered in the name of its Karta.
From out of its accumulated profits the company gave loans, in the assessment yea·r 1956-57, to three business concerns which \Vere owned by the assessee.
Section 2(6A) (e) of the Indian Income Tax .Act, 1922 provided that where a ]private company in which public were not substantially interested gave loans to its shareholders from out of its accumulated profits such loans would be treated as "deemed dividend" in the D hands of the shareholders.
The Income Tax Officer treated the loans as "deemed dividend" in the hands of the assessee on the grol,Jnd that though th
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- A.Merchy Clara vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise (Appeals)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- Nallathambi Thangaraj vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IMadras · 13 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S. Hira Films PVT. LTD. vs. M/S. Prasad Film Labs (Mumbai) Private LimitedBombay · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Jung Bahadur Singh, Through Its Proprietor, Jang Bahadur Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of RevenueJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
