AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (2) TMI 84
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 2(22)(e) of the Act was not applicable as the respondent/assessee was not the beneficial owner of the shares of M/s. Wecan Services Limited. It has been held that Saumya Meattle was the beneficial owner of the said shares and therefore, the requirement of Section 2(22)(e) was not satisfied. The tribunal has held that the requirement is that the shareholder should also be the beneficiary owner of the shares. 3. M/s. Wecan Services Ltd. had advanced Rs.70 lacs to the respondent/assessee. The Revenue claims that the respondent/assessee was a registered shareholder of Wecan Services Limited and therefore the fact that Ms. Saumya Meattle was the beneficiary owner of the said shares was inconsequential. Learned counsel for the Revenue has re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be its income. The apex Court further held that when the Act speaks of shareholder it refers to the registered shareholder. 21. The aforesaid decision of the apex Court in the case of C.P. Sarathy Mudaliar (supra) has been followed by the apex Court in the case of Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal v. CIT (supra). In this case, the company advanced the loans to the assessee HUF who was the beneficial owners of the shares in the company, but the shares were registered in the name of the individual Karta, who held the shares for and on behalf of the HUF. On the above facts, the question before the Supreme Court was whether the loans advanced to the HUF-beneficial owner of the shares-would be taxed as deemed dividend in the hands of the HUF. The Supr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mentioned the condition under the 1922 Act and the 1961 Act regarding the payee being a shareholder remains the same and it is the condition that such shareholder should be beneficial owner of the shares and the percentage of voting power that such shareholder should hold that has been prescribed as an additional condition under the 1961 Act. The word "shareholder" alone existed in the definition of dividend in the 1922 Act. The expression "shareholder" has been interpreted under the 1922 Act to mean a registered shareholder. This expression "shareholder" found in the 1961 Act has to be therefore construed as applying only to registered shareholder. It is a principle of interpretation of statutes that where once certain words in an Act hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s) holding not less than ten per cent of the voting power. It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Departmental Representative that under the 1961 Act there is no requirement of a shareholder being a registered holder and that even a beneficial ownership of shares would be sufficient. 24. The expression "shareholder being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares" referred to in the first limb of Section 2(22)(e) refers to both a registered shareholder and beneficial shareholder. If a person is a registered shareholder but not the beneficial then the provision of Section 2(22)(e) will not apply. Similarly if a person is a beneficial shareholder but not a registered shareholder then also the first limb of provisions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in one of the superior courts, and the legislature has repeated them in a subsequent statute, the legislature must be taken to have used them according to the meaning which a court of competent jurisdiction has given them. 6.1 In the 1961 Act, the word "shareholder" in section 2(22)(e) is followed by the following words "being a peson (sic) who is beneficial owner of shares". This expression only qualifies the word "shareholder" and does not in any way alter the position that the shareholder has to be a registered shareholder nor substitute the requirement to a requirement of merely holding a beneficial interest in the shares without being a registered holder of shares. If a person is a registered shareholder but not the beneficial shareh....