Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT (Calcutta High Court)

DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 13, 2011 (Date of publication)

Click here to download the judgement (pradip_kumar_malhotra_deemed_dividend.pdf)

S. 2(22)(e) does not apply to “non-gratuitous” advances to substantial shareholder

The assessee, a substantial shareholder in a closely held company, let out his flat to the company and also permitted it to place it on mortgage. In consideration, the company passed a resolution authorizing the assessee to obtain from the company an interest-free deposit up to Rs.50 lakhs. He also received an amount by way of “security deposit”. The AO assessed the said “advances/ deposits” as “deemed dividend” u/s 2(22)(e). The CIT (A) deleted the addition though the Tribunal upheld it. On appeal by the assessee, HELD reversing the Tribunal:

The phrase “by way of advance or loan” s. 2(22)(e) must be construed to mean those advances or loans which a shareholder enjoys simply on account of being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares. If such loan or advance is given to such share holder as a consequence of any further consideration received from the shareholder, then such advance or loan cannot be said to be “deemed dividend” u/s 2(22)(e). Thus, while gratuitous loan or advance given by a company to a substantial shareholder comes within the purview of s. 2(22)(e), a case where the loan or advance is given in return to an advantage conferred upon the company by the share holder does not. On facts, as the advance was in lieu of the company being permitted to mortgage the assessee’s falt, it was not “gratuitous” and so not assessable as “deemed dividend” (Creative Dyeing 318 ITR 476 (Del) & Nagindas Kapadia 177 ITR 393 (Bom) followed).

See CIT vs. Arvind Kumar Jain (Delhi High Court) on whether “trade advances” are assessable u/s 2(22)(e)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *