2018 (8) TMI 1251 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT Upholds Section 10AA Exemption, Reinstates 2(22)(e) Deemed Dividend

The ITAT upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the assessee met all conditions for exemption. However, ... Exemption u/s 10AA - primary conditions of eligibility - continuation of the old business - Held that:- assessee has established an independent unit in the SEZ at Andheri to carry out manufacture and export of plain and studded golden and silver jewellery and started commercial production from A.Y. 2006-07 onwards. - AO was incorrect in denying the benefit of deduction claimed under Section 10AA of the Act. - Decided against the revenue. Deemed dividend - additions u/s. 2(22)(e) r.w.s. 56 - loans and advances received from the two lender companies - It is the claim of the assessee that the loans and advances received from the above two companies are normal business transactions in the nature of intercorporte loans and hence the AO was erred in applying the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) - Held that:- In this case the undisputed fact is that common shareholders having substantial share holding in assessee company as well as lender companies. Therefore we are of the view that the loans and advances received by the assessee from the two companies comes within the ambit of provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. - Additions confirmed - Decided in favor of revenue. Issues Involved:1. Deletion of disallowance under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Deletion of addition under Section 2(22)(e) read with Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Disallowance under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The Revenue challenged the deletion of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding the exemption claimed under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO disallowed the deduction on the grounds that the business of the assessee was merely a continuation of an old business, thus violating the primary conditions of eligibility for exemption under Section 10AA. The assessee, engaged in the manufacture and export of studded jewelry, had claimed deductions for profits derived from a unit located in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ). The AO argued that the assessee had set up a new unit in the SEZ by splitting/reconstructing an already existing unit.The CIT(A), after considering the submissions, deleted the disallowance, noting that the assessee had fulfilled all conditions specified under Section 10AA and that setting up a new business in a different name does not amount to splitting/reconstruction of an already existing business. The CIT(A) relied on the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, where similar deductions were allowed. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the ITAT Mumbai's earlier decisions in the assessee's favor for assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10, where it was held that the assessee had established an independent unit in the SEZ and commenced commercial production from A.Y. 2006-07 onwards.2. Deletion of Addition under Section 2(22)(e) read with Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The Revenue also contested the deletion of an addition of Rs. 6,95,52,345/- under Section 2(22)(e) read with Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had made this addition on the grounds that the assessee received loans and advances from companies where common shareholders held beneficial ownership. The AO argued that these transactions constituted deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e).The CIT(A) deleted the addition, citing the Bombay High Court's decision in Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that intercorporate loans received in the normal course of business do not fall under Section 2(22)(e). The CIT(A) also referenced the ITAT Special Bench decision in ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd., which supported the view that only registered shareholders are subject to deemed dividend provisions.However, the ITAT reversed the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Gopal & Sons (HUF) vs. CIT, which clarified that even beneficial shareholders holding substantial interest in a company are subject to Section 2(22)(e). The ITAT concluded that since common shareholders held substantial interest in both the assessee and the lender companies, the loans and advances received by the assessee fell within the ambit of Section 2(22)(e). Therefore, the ITAT upheld the AO's addition of deemed dividends.Conclusion:The ITAT partly allowed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of disallowance under Section 10AA but reversing the deletion of addition under Section 2(22)(e). The ITAT's decision emphasized the importance of fulfilling specific conditions for tax exemptions and the applicability of deemed dividend provisions to beneficial shareholders. The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 21st August 2018.