Hospital operator's funds from controlled company ruled commercial transactions, not deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) (22)(e)

ITAT Kolkata ruled in favor of the assessee regarding deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). The assessee, holding 66.22% shareholding, received funds from the company which revenue authorities treated as loan attracting deemed dividend provisions. ITAT held that transactions were commercial in nature for business exigencies, not loans and advances. The assessee managed hospital's daily operations and funds were exchanged based on business requirements. These consistent transactions over years were previously accepted by revenue authorities. Section 2(22)(e) provisions were deemed inapplicable to such commercial transactions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Addition of deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act amounting to Rs. 2,99,87,804 confirmed by CIT (A).

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of Deemed Dividend
- The appeal concerns the addition of deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,99,87,804, confirmed by CIT (A).
- The assessee, a doctor running a hospital, had taken a loan from a company in which he held a substantial share. The AO and CIT (A) treated this loan as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act.
- The company had provided funds to the assessee for the purchase of flats, which were intended to be used as a guest house for visiting doctors. The funds were transferred back due to non-utilization.
- The AO and CIT (A) concluded that the transactions were not genuine business transactions but a way to divert company funds for personal benefit, upholding the addition.
- The appellant contended that the transactions were for commercial expediency, citing judgments and a CBDT circular supporting their argument.
- The Tribunal analyzed the ledger accounts and transactions between the assessee and the company, finding them to be regular business transactions for commercial expediency, not loans or advances.
- Referring to judicial precedents and the CBDT circular, the Tribunal held that section 2(22)(e) could not be invoked in this case. The addition was reversed, and the appeal was allowed.

Conclusion:
- The Tribunal reversed the addition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, as the transactions between the assessee and the company were found to be for commercial expediency and not loans or advances, following judicial precedents and a CBDT circular.
- The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.

---