Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Tribunal held that ; the question of law considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal and Sons (HUF) v CIT ( 2017) 399 ITR 1(SC)   was different from the issue which arises in the present matter. The question of law which the Supreme Court was called upon to consider was whether loans and advances received by a HUF could be deemed as a dividend within the meaning of S. 2(22)(e) of the Act. The assessee in that case was the HUF and the payment in question was made to the HUF. The shares were held by the Karta of the HUF. It is in this context that the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that HUF was the beneficial share holder. In the instant case, however, both the registered and beneficial shareholders are two individuals and not the assessee-company. Therefore, in our view, the judgment of the Supreme Court does not rule on the issue which has come up for consideration in the instant matter. ( ITA NO. 1003/Mum/2017, dt. 20.06.2018)(AY. 2010-11)

[Click here to download PDF file]http://itatonline.org/archives/wp-content/uploads/Gilbarco-Deemed-Dividend.pdf