Revenue's appeal dismissed as excess payments to shareholders under Section 2(22)(e) were outstanding receivables, not advances (22)(e)

ITAT Hyderabad dismissed Revenue's appeal regarding deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). The AO incorrectly treated excess payments as loans/advances, but CIT(A) found no excess payments were made during FY 2020-21. The closing debit balance represented outstanding receivables against sales, not advances. Revenue failed to provide evidence contradicting CIT(A)'s findings. ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, following precedent from a similar case, and directed deletion of the deemed dividend addition.

---

---

Issues Presented and Considered

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:

• Whether the payments made by the assessee company to associated companies, which resulted in debit balances exceeding purchases, constitute 'loans or advances' within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, thereby attracting the provisions of deemed dividend.
• Whether the excess payments made over and above a certain percentage (150% or 200%) of purchases can be arbitrarily treated as loans or advances, ignoring the commercial nature of the transactions.
• Whether the current account transactions involving two-way movement of funds between associated companies can be regarded as loans or advances for the purpose of Section 2(22)(e).
• Whether the payments made to recipient companies, which were utilized for their business purposes and not diverted for the benefit of the common substantial shareholder, attract the deemed dividend provisions.
• Whether the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in applying Section 2(22)(e) and consequent levy of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) under Section 115Q in the hands of the assessee.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Characterization of Payments as Loans or Advances under Section 2(22)(e)

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 2(22)(e) defines deemed dividend to include any payment by a closely held company by way of loan or advance to a shareholder holding not less than 10% voting power or to a concern in which such shareholder has substantial interest, to the extent of accumulated profits. The CBDT Circular No.19/2017 clarifies that trade advances in the ordinary course of business are not covered under 'advance' for this section. Judicial precedents such as CIT vs. India Fruits Ltd (2015), CIT vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt Ltd (2009), and others have consistently held that trade advances arising from commercial transactions cannot be treated as loans or advances attracting deemed dividend provisions.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the companies involved are engaged in the same line of business (manufacture and sale of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients). The transactions between the assessee company and the recipient companies involved purchases, sales, payments, and receipts, evidencing bona fide commercial dealings. The Tribunal emphasized that trade advances arising in the ordinary course of business cannot be re-characterized as loans or advances for the purpose of Section 2(22)(e).

Key Evidence and Findings: Ledger accounts and transactional details showed substantial purchases and sales between the companies, with payments made and received regularly. The AO and the CIT(A) had arbitrarily limited the reasonable quantum of trade advances to 150% or 200% of purchases, treating excess payments as loans or advances.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal rejected the arbitrary thresholds imposed by the AO and CIT(A), holding that the extent of trade advances is a commercial decision and cannot be dictated by tax authorities. The Supreme Court's ruling in Hero Cycles (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2015) was cited, emphasizing that tax authorities must view such matters from the standpoint of a prudent businessman rather than imposing artificial limits.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue contended that excess payments beyond 150% or 200% of purchases lack nexus with business and hence qualify as loans or advances. The Tribunal found this approach unsustainable and arbitrary, lacking any legal or factual basis.

Conclusion: All payments made against purchases, including those exceeding 200%, are trade advances in the nature of commercial transactions and cannot be treated as loans or advances under Section 2(22)(e). Accordingly, the addition on account of deemed dividend on this ground is unsustainable.

2. Nature of Transactions as Current Account Adjustments

Legal Framework and Precedents: Courts have held that transactions involving two-way movement of funds on a need basis between associated companies constitute current account or accommodation entries and do not amount to loans or advances under Section 2(22)(e). Relevant decisions include CIT vs. Schutz Dishman Biotech Pvt Ltd (Gujarat HC), CIT vs. Gayatri Chakraborti (Calcutta HC), Ravindra R Fotedar vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai), and others.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the ledger accounts reflected a series of debit and credit entries, indicating mutual payments and receipts in the normal course of business. Such current account transactions are inherently different from loans or advances, which are typically one-sided and fewer in number.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee produced detailed ledger accounts showing the two-way flow of funds between the companies. The AO had not disputed the existence of such current account adjustments but treated the excess payments as loans or advances nonetheless.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that the existence of current account transactions precludes the characterization of the payments as loans or advances under Section 2(22)(e). The nature of transactions must be respected as commercial adjustments rather than re-characterized for tax purposes.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the excess payments lacked business nexus and thus qualify as loans or advances. The Tribunal rejected this, relying on the factual matrix and judicial precedents emphasizing the nature of current account transactions.

Conclusion: The payments are current account transactions and do not constitute loans or advances under Section 2(22)(e). Therefore, no deemed dividend arises on this ground.

3. Utilization of Payments for Business Purposes and Absence of Benefit to Common Shareholder

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Supreme Court in CIT vs. Mukundray K. Shah (2007) and the Gujarat High Court in Jayesh T Kotak vs. DCIT (2020) clarified that deemed dividend arises only if the shareholder ultimately benefits from the payment made by the company to a concern in which he has substantial interest. Mere payments routed through associated concerns do not attract deemed dividend unless benefit to the shareholder is established.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the payments made by the assessee company to the recipient companies were utilized entirely for their business purposes, such as working capital, acquisition of fixed assets, investment in subsidiaries, and were not diverted for the benefit of the common substantial shareholder.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee furnished cash flow statements and audited financials showing utilization of funds for business activities. The AO acknowledged that funds were used for financing current assets but opined that interest-free funds could be construed as benefit to the recipient company, not to the shareholder.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that since no direct or indirect benefit accrued to the common substantial shareholder, the payments cannot be treated as deemed dividend. The AO's contrary view was found to be contrary to binding judicial precedents.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue contended that the payments indirectly benefited the shareholder by avoiding dividend distribution tax. The Tribunal rejected this, emphasizing the need for actual benefit to the shareholder as a precondition for invoking Section 2(22)(e).

Conclusion: Absence of benefit to the shareholder negates the applicability of deemed dividend provisions. Hence, the addition on this ground is not sustainable.

4. Specific Findings Regarding M/s. Maithri Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. MSN Organics Pvt. Ltd.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT(A) found that M/s. Maithri Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. had not made any excess payments to M/s. MSN Organics Pvt. Ltd. during the relevant year. The closing debit balance was attributable to receivables against sales outstanding from M/s. MSN Organics Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue failed to produce evidence to dispute this finding.

Application of Law to Facts: Since there was no excess payment, the foundation for treating such payments as loans or advances under Section 2(22)(e) was absent. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition made on this account.

Conclusion: The addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of excess payments by M/s. Maithri Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. was rightly deleted.

Significant Holdings

"Trade advances given in the normal course of business on account of trading transactions cannot be treated as 'loans or advances' so as to constitute deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act."

"The Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case."

"Current account transactions involving two-way movement of funds on a need basis between associated companies cannot be regarded as loans or advances falling within the ambit of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act."

"Any payment made by a company in which a shareholder has shareholding exceeding 10% of the voting power to any concern in which such shareholder has substantial interest would be deemed dividend in his hands only if any benefit from such transaction has been received by such shareholder."

"In the absence of any benefit having been received by the shareholder, there is no obligation to treat such payments as deemed dividend."

"The extent of trade advances is a commercial decision and tax authorities cannot impose arbitrary limits on the quantum of trade advances."

Final determinations on each issue:

• The payments made by the assessee company to the associated companies are trade advances in the ordinary course of business and not loans or advances under Section 2(22)(e).
• The current account nature of transactions involving two-way movement of funds negates their characterization as loans or advances.
• The payments were utilized for business purposes and did not confer any benefit on the common substantial shareholder; hence, deemed dividend provisions do not apply.
• The Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s imposition of arbitrary thresholds for excess payments was unsustainable.
• The additions made under Section 2(22)(e) and consequent levy of Dividend Distribution Tax under Section 115Q are deleted.

---