C.I.T. ANDHRA PRADESH vs. C. P. SARATHY MUDALIAR

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2242/1968Supreme Court[1972] 1 S.C.R. 107612 October 1971Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: K.S. HEGDE, HANS RAJ KHANNA8 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). For the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57, a private limited company, in which members of the HUF were shareholders, advanced loans to the HUF. The Revenue treated these loans as dividend income of the HUF under Section 2(6A)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal found that the loans were granted to the HUF and not to its individual members, and that the HUF was not a registered shareholder. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's view. The Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that a HUF cannot be a shareholder of a company; only the individual registered in the company's books is considered a shareholder. Section 2(6A)(e) defines 'dividend' artificially to include certain loans to shareholders, and this provision must be strictly construed. Since the HUF was not a registered shareholder, loans advanced to it cannot be considered loans advanced to a 'shareholder' under Section 2(6A)(e). Therefore, the provision is inapplicable. The Court distinguished this from cases of actual dividend receipt, where the beneficial owner might be taxed. The loans were not advanced to registered shareholders, making Section 2(6A)(e) inapplicable. The appeals were dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the loans advanced by the company to the HUF could be deemed to be dividend income of the HUF under Section 2(6A)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, considering the HUF was not a registered shareholder. Assessee's contentions: - The provisions of Section 2(6A)(e) are ultra vires the Constitution (this contention was expressly given up). - There was no actual payment of loan by the company to the HUF. - The deemed dividend could not be assessed as the income of the HUF because the HUF was not the shareholder to whom the payment was made. Revenue's contentions: - The Revenue contended that the loans advanced to the HUF should be treated as dividend income under Section 2(6A)(e). The judgment does not explicitly detail the Revenue's arguments beyond this, but it is implied they relied on the company's loans to the HUF being taxable as dividend income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(6A)(e),Section 23A,Section 16(2),Section 18(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1076 CJ.T. ANDHRA PRADESH v. C. P. SARATHY MUDALIAR October 12, 1971 [K. S. HEGDE AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.J Income-tax Act, 1922, s, 2(6A) (e)-Dividend-H.U.F. holding .share& in names of its members-HUF not registered as shareholder- Loans to HUF by company not dividend wilhin meaning of s. 2(6A) (e).

The assessee was a Hindu undivided farn:Iy.

Three m1embers of !he family namely, S and his two sons were shareholders. in a private limited company which was not a company in which the public were substantially interesf"d within the meaning of s. 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922. fo the account years 'relevant to the assessment years 1955-56, and 1956·57 the company advanced certain loans to the aforesaid Hindu undivided· farnil:Y: The question ai;:ose whether these loans could be considered as 'dividend' within the meaning of that expression in s. 2(6A) (e) of the Act.

The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal found as a fact that the loans in question· had been granted to tbo H.U.F.

It further held that tho loans _advanced to the H.U.F. collld not be considered as Joans advan..:cd to the' 'shareholders' within the ·meaning of s. 2(6A)(e).

The Higa Court in fefen~n

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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.

More judgments on Section 23A

All 45 judgments and leading authorities on Section 23A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →