DCIT vs. KDA Enterprises Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

(i) As per the provisions of law prevailing during the year under consideration, the gift received by one corporate body from another corporate bodies do not come under the ambit of income as contemplated u/s 2(24) of the Act or any other provisions of the Act. The gift received are a voluntary payments made by the donors to the assessee. Neither the assessee has any legal right to claim the gift from the donor nor donors have any legal or contractual obligations to give gift to the assessee. The gifts received by the assessee was a voluntary payments made by the donor, without consideration to the assessee. The gift received has nothing to do with the business of the assessee so as to constitute its income from business or a revenue receipt in the nature of income.

(ii) The suspicion of the AO that the transaction of gift is dubious and to bring into books any unaccounted money is contrary to the facts on record. Insofar as admittedly the gifts have been received on account of dividend by the donor companies from the Reliance Industries Limited. The Reliance Industries Ltd. have also paid dividend distribution tax, therefore, such money received by the assessee is not unaccounted money. The AO has not brought any evidence on record contrary to the claim of the assessee. Even during appellate proceeding, the CIT(A) has given opportunity to the AO, in the remand report also, the AO could not rebut the claim of the assessee on the basis of any contrary evidence on record. Hence, the claim of assessee cannot be rejected merely on the basis of doubt or suspicion.

(iii) With regard to AO‘s objection regarding motive behind the transaction, the A.O. has stated in para 8 of the assessment order that it could not ascertain the exact nature or motive behind the transaction because of limited time and resources available, whereas, the case was remanded to the A.O. by CIT(A) and an opportunity was again given with the specific direction to find out the nature and motive behind these transactions or gifts, whereas, A.O. could not find out any other motive behind such transactions and merely stated in the remand report that assessee has not furnished any clear and distinctive motive with regard to these transactions and the exact nature and motive is best known to the assessee. But merely blaming the assessee that it is not furnishing the correct motive is putting the cart before the horse. Whereas case of the assessee is that it has received these amounts as gifts, therefore, it is for the AO to bring on record any other contrary motive and if he fails to do so then there is no alternative but to accept the claim of the assessee that these are gifts.

(iv) With regard to the AO‘s objection regarding gift deed, we found that the A.O. has held that these transactions cannot be treated as gifts because there are no gift deeds and because they have not been specifically accepted, whereas, there is no such legal requirement for making a gift. Even by simple delivery the gift can be made of an amount or cheque or other movable property. Whereas, in the case of the assessee, letters certifying the gifts with corresponding resolution of their board have been furnished before the A.O. During appellate proceedings before CIT(A), assessee has also filed affidavits from all the four donor companies, certifying the gifts. Assessee has also filed its affidavit for certifying the receipt of gifts. Receipt of gift as well as making of gift are authorized by respective Memorandum and Articles of Association of the companies and the assessee. Gifts have been accepted by the assessee by adopting a resolution by the Board of Directors. After sending all these documents to the AO, the CIT(A) had called a remand report from AO, therefore, this is no violation of rule 46A also. Thus, it cannot be said that these amounts are not gifts merely on the basis that there are no gift deeds or acceptance.

(v) Now, coming to the contention of AO that company cannot make a gift and that there is a lack of natural love and affection in case of gift by the company. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench in case of in the case of D.P. World Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No. 3627 and 3841/Mum/2012, Mumbai ‘D’ Bench, order dated 12/10/12 and Redington (India) Limited, ITA No. 513/Mds/2014. Companies are competent to make and receive gifts and natural love and affection are not necessary requirement. Only requirement for company is to make gifts as per respective memorandum and article of association, which authorize the company for the same. Applying the proposition of law laid down in the above decision to the facts of the instant case, we found that the assessee and the donor companies are authorized in this regard for receiving and making gifts respectively by their Memorandum and Articles of Association.

(vi) As per section 56(2)(viia) and 56(2)(viib), gift of certain kind of shares received by a company in which the public are not substantially interested are taxable and, therefore, it is clear that the Income-tax Act, itself provides that companies can receive gifts, of course, gifts of only shares of certain kind received by certain category of companies are taxable. (The provisions of section 56(2)(viia) and (viib) are applicable w.e.f. 1/6/10 and 1/4/13 respectively). Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee could not have received such gifts from other companies. It is also clear from the Transfer of Property Act that companies can receive and make gifts and there is no requirement of any natural love and affection for making or receiving a gift by companies. Even the Income-tax Act by way of Section 56(2)(viia) and 56(2)(viib) provides that gifts of certain kind of shares are taxable in the hands of certain category of companies.

(vii) Three elements are essential in determining whether or not a gift has been made, a) delivery. b) donative intent,’ and c) acceptance by the donee. All the above essentials stated by the AO are duly been fulfilled by the assessee and all the four donor of gifts. With respect to delivery of gift, the dividend has actually been received by the assessee in its bank account which conclusively prove the delivery of the gift from donor to donee. With respect to intent of donor, all four donors have passed a resolution in the meeting of shareholders and board of Directors that they intend to transfer the dividend on shares of Reliance Industries held by them to the assessee donee as gift. Thus, the donative intent to transfer the dividend as gift is clear from the resolution passed by the donors. With respect to acceptance by the donee, the assessee has duly passed a resolution in the meeting of shareholder and board of directors duly conveying their acceptance of the gift. Thus all the essential requisites of gifts stated by the AO in assessment order have been duly fulfilled by the assessee and no adverse conclusion can be drawn in the case of the assessee.

(viii) The AO has limited power of making increase or reduction as provided in the Explanation to the said Section. Furthermore, the Explanation to section 115JB of the Act is applicable only if the item of expense or income is debited or credited to the Profit & Loss Account. However, when the item of expense or income is not debited or credited to the Profit & Loss Account, Explanation to section 115JB of the Act cannot apply and hence no adjustment is required under that section to the books profit. In the case of the assessee gift of Rs.161,86,77,034/- was received from corporate bodies were not credited to the Profit & Loss Account and hence no adjustment is required to the book profit declared by the assessee u/s 115JB of the Act.