TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 676
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating the fact that the outstanding debit balance of M/s. Maithri Laboratories Ltd in fact represents loan or advance which attracts the provisions of Sec.2(22)(e) of the Act 4) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee is a substantial shareholder (having shareholding exceeding 20%) in both the companies M/s. Maithri Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. (company which advanced loans) and M/s. MSN Organics Pvt. Ltd., (company which accepted loans) 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and the Director of M/s. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. MSN Pharma Chem Pvt. Limited having income from salary, other sources and house property, filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2021-22 originally on 29.03.2022 admitting therein net income of Rs. 156,71,42,700/- and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. A search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the I.T. Act were carried out in the case of M/s MSN Laboratories Group cases, on 24.02.2021, in connection with the same the assessee is also covered. In the case of assessee, search & seizure operations were commenced on 24.02.2021 and the proceedings were finally concluded on 27.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eceipts, and also excess payments made to MSNL and MSNO. The assessee was asked to provide details of sales and purchases made to/from both the companies. The assessee was also required to produce the nature and purpose of payments made, the necessity or purpose of giving such amounts in excess of purchases made, and to provide a copy of the Board resolution passed, if any, for making payments in excess of purchases made along with details of interest charged on such excess amounts paid, if any. In response, M.S.N. Reddy, has submitted ledger account copies of MSNL and MSNO in the books of payer company and also filed details of opening balance and sales made during the relevant financial year, purchases made from the above two companies, payments made and received from the above two companies and closing balances. M.S.N. Reddy had also explained the nature and necessity of payments made to the above two group companies and submitted that buyer company and the other two group companies i.e., MSNL and MSNO, are engaged in the same line of business of manufacture and sale of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs). Buyer company and the recipient company have carried out trading tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has made excess payments over and above the normal business transactions, but the buyer company has not engaged in the business of finance and no interest was charged in respect of said loans and advances and therefore, invoked provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act and made addition of Rs. 13,20,26,206/- for the assessment year 2021-22. 7. The AO further observed that the M/s. MSN Pharma Chem Pvt. Ltd, being the payee, is liable to pay dividend distribution tax under the provisions of Section 115-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the said deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) in the hands of the common substantial shareholder, in view of the amendment made to Section 115Q with effect from 01.04.2018, making dividend distribution tax applicable to deemed dividends also. Since no dividend distribution tax has been paid as deemed dividend by M/s. MSN Pharma Chem Pvt. Ltd, the AO made addition towards deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act and computed dividend distribution tax for the assessment year 2021-22. 8. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the LD.CIT(A) and challenged the addition made towards deemed divi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....huge payments in its books of accounts is of no relevance. The LD.CIT(A) further observed that the contention of the appellant that the transactions between the two companies are in the nature of current account adjustments due to two-way movement of funds on a need basis is also incorrect because, in a current account (running), it is an opening account, an unsettled running account used in a trade between the buyer and seller, wherein it allows the buyer to make ongoing purchases with amounts paid by reducing the balance, and there is a fixed date by which payments and receipts must be settled. However, in the present case, during the assessment year 2021-22, the appellant has purchased Rs.5.69 crores from MSN Organics and made sales of Rs. 29.25 crores and consequently, the appellant had to receive a balance amount of Rs. 16,05,06,533/-. 10. The LD.CIT(A) further observed that the appellant has also failed to establish any business exigency or need for making huge payments when compared to purchases or sales. Although there are purchase / sale transactions existing between the appellant and the recipient company for the assessment year, when these transactions are compared to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... conditions for invoking the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) are satisfied, the reasons given by the AO to consider the transactions between the appellant company and the other two companies as loans and advances must be examined in light of the transactions between these companies. If you go by the analysis of the transactions between the buyer company and the other two companies, as done by the Assessing Officer, there is a clear fact to the effect that M.S.N. Reddy has made very minimum purchases from the above two companies, but has made substantial amounts over and above the value of purchases. Therefore, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that any amount paid in excess of 150% / 200% of purchases should be treated as loans and advances, and thus, rightly computed the excess amount paid by the buyer company to the two companies and invoked the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) read with Section 115Q of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that the order of LD.CIT(A) should be upheld. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the assessee Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. submitted that the LD.CIT(A) erred in sustaining additions made by the AO towards deemed dividend under Section 2(2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of advances paid by the buyer company falls under trade advances and rest is loans and advances. 13.1 The Learned Counsel for the assessee, referring to certain judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Jayesh T Kotak Vs. DCIT reported in (2020) 425 ITR 435 (Gujarat), submitted that 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 to be dividend in his hands if any benefit from such transaction has been received by such shareholder. The intention of the Legislature is to tax funds ultimately received by a shareholder holding not less than 10% of voting power in the company, where such funds have been routed through different modes / concerns and used for the benefit of the shareholder. In the present case, the amounts paid by the buyer company to the two associated companies are for their business requirements, including deployment of working capital, purchase of new assets, and financial support in furtherance of their business activities. Therefore, these transactions cannot be consid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made by considering the debit balance outstanding in the accounts of two group concerns i.e., M/s MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd and M/s MSN Organics Pvt. Ltd, in the books of the appellant company as on 31.03.2019. The appellant company and two group companies MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd and MSN Organics Pvt. Ltd (referred to as recipient companies) are engaged in the same line of business of manufacture and sale of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API). The appellant company and the recipient companies have carried out trading transactions of purchases and sales with each other in the course of the said business. The appellant company has made payments in respect of purchases made from the recipient companies and received payments in respect of sales made to recipient companies. During course of assessment proceedings, the AO analyzed the details of opening balance, sales, purchases, receipts, payments and closing balance in the accounts of the two recipient companies and observed that they are in receipt of excess amounts from the appellant company in comparison to the amounts receivable by them against the trading transactions of purchases and sales that took place between the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ories Pvt Ltd in the books of the appellant A/c of MSN Organics Pvt Ltd in the books of the appellant Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) Opening debit Balance 57,44,33,690 0 Add: Sales 100,52,08,397 54,74,844 Add: Payments (net of rent) 298,63,99,230 14,79,63,266 Less: Purchases 1,95,03,644 53,36,102 Less: Receipts 154,70,02,126 13,00,86,779 Closing debit balance 299,95,35,547 1,80,15,229 Excess payments during the year (sales + payments - purchases - receipts) 242,51,01,857 1,80,15,228 Less: Additional 50% of purchases in addition to 100% of purchases considered above 97,51,822 26,68,051 Balance excess payments treated as "advance or loan" constituting deemed dividend 241,53,50,035 1,53,47,177 Aggregate deemed dividend for AY 2019-20 243,06,97,212 Particulars A/c of MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd in the books of the appellant. Amount in (Rs.) Opening debit balance 299,95,35,547 Add: Sales 100,43,24,928 Add: Payments (net of rent) 506,40,05,020 Less: Purchases 2,13,45,020 Less: Receipts 336,86,26,307 Closing debit balance 567,78,93,192 Ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r and in which he has a substantial interest or any payment by any such company on behalf, or for the individual benefit, of any such shareholder, to the extent to which the company in either case possesses accumulated profits. The term 'Concern' has been defined which includes 'a company' also. Therefore, in the present case, the conditions prescribed for invoking the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act is primarily satisfied to the extent the appellant company and other two companies are having common share holder Shri MSN Reddy, who is holding more than 10% voting power in all the three companies and further, the appellant company is having accumulated profits which is in excess of the amount of advance computed by the Assessing Officer. However, whether the transactions between the appellant company and the other two companies are trade advances which are carried out in the normal course of business of all the companies or any loan or advances which fall within the ambit of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act has to be seen in light of nature of transaction between the parties. 18. There is no dispute regarding the satisfaction of the some of the basic ingredients for in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er company and thus, these trade advances in the ordinary course of business cannot be regarded as payment of 'loans or advances' to the recipient company, since the same are undeniably in the nature of commercial transactions. It is a settled position of law that 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. This legal position is fortified by the decisions in the case of CIT Vs. India Fruits Ltd [2015] 53 taxmann.com 307 (Andhra Pradesh), where it has been held as under : "The finding of facts arrived at by the Tribunal was that the transaction in question was a business transaction and it would have benefited both, the assessee-company and the company P. In fact, the revenue had also conceded that the amount was not a loan but only an advance because the amount paid to the assessee-company would be adjusted against the entitlement to moneys of the assessee-company payable by P in the subsequent years. [Para 10] The revenue contended that since the company P was not in the business of lending money, the payments made by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt company and recipient companies, which resulted in debit balance in the account of the recipient companies at the end of the year, but both authorities have misdirected themselves in holding that payments made to the recipient companies in excess of 150% or 200% of purchases from such company cannot be treated as 'trade advances' in the nature of commercial transactions. The AO has wrongly treated the payments in excess of 150% of the purchases as 'loans or advance' and wrongly held the same to be deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Similarly, the LD.CIT(A) has wrongly treated the payments in excess of 200% of the purchases as 'loans or advance' and wrongly upheld the same to be deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. In our considered view, the said approach of the AO/CIT(A) is arbitrary and the same is not founded on any settled principle laid down by the Courts or on any stipulation conveyed by the Board through a circular regarding the reasonableness of the quantum of trade advances. The AO/CIT(A) has not revealed the basis on which they arrived at the threshold of 150%/200% of purchases for accepting the reasonableness of the quantum of trade advances. In the absence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... artificial limit on the quantum of payments that can be regarded as trade advances by sitting in the arm-chair of the businessman. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the entire amount of payments made against purchases has to be regarded as 'trade advances' without any artificial limitation on the quantum of such trade advances. As a result, the amounts paid to recipient company in excess of 200% of the purchases also have to be regarded as 'trade advances' which are in the nature of commercial transactions only and they cannot be characterized as 'loans or advance' constituting deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e). The addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) towards deemed dividend is therefore wholly untenable and needs to be deleted. 21. We further noted that the transactions of payments made by the appellant to the recipient companies have arisen due to business exigencies and the said transactions therefore bear commercial character. The appellant company and the recipient companies are associate concerns of the same group with a common Managing Director and substantial shareholder Sri.M.S.N Reddy. The group companies, including ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cannot be considered to be falling under the ambit of "advance or loans" under section 2(22)(e) so as to constitute deemed dividend. Further, the provisions of deemed dividend are not attracted in the facts of the case for the instant assessment years as the basic ingredient to invoke the said provisions that payments by way of 'advance or loans' have been made by the appellant company to the recipient companies in which Sri. M.S.N.Reddy is the common substantial shareholder, is non-existent. Therefore, in our considered view, the addition made by the AO, to the extent upheld by the CIT(A), towards deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) in the hands of the appellant for the purpose of levy of dividend distribution tax without the satisfaction of the said basic condition laid down in the section is unwarranted and untenable. 22. The second limb of argument of the appellant is that current adjustment account transactions do not represent 'loans or advance' for the purpose of deemed dividend. We, find that there is a two-way movement of funds between the appellant company and the recipient companies as per the business requirements of the said companies and the same is evident from th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ransactions between the shareholder and the company were in the nature of current account and the provisions of section 2(22)(e) would not be applicable, where there were transactions of giving money by the company to the shareholder and vice versa in the account. Further, the ITAT, Mumbai held in the case of Ravindra R Fotedar Vs. ACIT [2017] 85 taxmann.com 314 (Mumbai) (Pg No.105-111 of PB-I) that where the movement of funds is in both ways on need basis between the two companies in which the assessee held substantial interest, the transactions are in the form of current accommodation entries and the amount in question could not be regarded as deemed dividend. In another case of Neha Home Builders Pvt Ltd Vs. DCIT [2018] 98 taxmann.com 465 (Mumbai-Trib) also (Pg No.112-116 of PB-I), the ITAT, Mumbai held that when the transactions between group companies were current and inter banking accounts containing both receipt and payment entries, same could not be regarded as loans and advance, as contemplated under section 2(22)(e) and no addition could be made as deemed dividend. Similar view was expressed by the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Saamag Developers Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT [2018] 90 ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... business, financing the acquisition of fixed assets of the business (setting up new units/expansion of existing units), investment in subsidiaries and loans to related parties (subsidiaries). The funds have not been diverted to the common substantial shareholder or were not utilised for the benefit of said shareholder. The details of the utilisation of the funds by the two recipient companies are submitted at Pg No.75-76 of PB-I, which were submitted to the LD.CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings. The said statements are prepared on the basis of the cash flow statement forming part of the audited financial statements of the recipient companies, the copies of which were furnished to the AO during the assessment proceedings. It may be seen from the perusal of the said statements that the funds received from appellant company have been fully subsumed in the funds utilised by the recipient companies during the year for the purpose of working capital, acquisition of fixed assets of the business (setting up new units/expansion of existing units), investment in subsidiaries and loans to related parties (subsidiaries). Thus, the payments made to the recipient companies during the year ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10% voting power in the company, which have been routed through different modes/concerns. The Hon'ble High Court held that what needs to be taxed as deemed dividend is the amount ultimately used for the benefit of the shareholder. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted below: "7.11 Examining the facts of the case in the light of the above legal and statutory position, this case relates to the second mode of payment envisaged under clause (e) of section 2(22) viz. to any concern in which such shareholder is a member or a partner and in which he has substantial interest. From the reasons recorded it emerges that according to the Assessing Officer unsecured loans have been extended by M/s J.P. Infrastructure Limited to its sister concerns, viz. Gujarat Mall Management Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Aryan Arcade Pvt. Ltd. and that the petitioner held 27.49% shares in M/s J.P. Infrastructure Limited; 50% shares in Gujarat Mall Management Co. Pvt. Ltd.; and 29% shares in Aryan Arcade Pvt. Ltd., which according to him had to be treated as deemed dividend in the hands of the shareholder and taxed accordingly. As is apparent on a plain reading of the reasons recorded, while the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bstantial shares from the loan giver company or the loan receiver company. Therefore, in the absence of any benefit having been received by the petitioner, there was no obligation cast upon him to disclose such transactions." 26. Further, the SLP filed by the Revenue against the said decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by stating that it does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court, as reported in DCIT Vs. Jayesh T Kotak [2021] 130 taxmann.com 170 (SC) (Pg No.147 of PB-I). Therefore, in our considered view, it is now a settled law that the payment made by the payer company to the recipient company, in which there is a common shareholder holding not less than 10% and 20% of the voting power respectively, would be deemed to be 'dividend' in the hands of such shareholder only if any benefit from such transaction has been received by such shareholder or the amount is ultimately used for the benefit of the shareholder. This settled legal principle has been judicially laid down having regard to the intention of the legislature to tax funds ultimately received by a shareholder holding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In view of the said incontrovertible fact and having regard to the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jayant T Kotak (supra), we are of the considered view that the payments made by the appellant company to the recipient companies during the year do not fall under the scope of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Therefore, the addition made by the AO towards deemed dividend in the hands of the appellant for the purpose of levy of dividend distribution tax, to the extent upheld by the LD.CIT(A) is not warranted for this reason also and thus, deleted. 28. In this view of the matter and considering facts and circumstances of this case and also, by following ratios of various Courts/Tribunals discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the transactions between appellant Company and two other recipient Companies do not come under the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and consequently, the AO/CIT(A) is erred in levying dividend distribution tax in the hands of the assessee for both assessment years. Thus, we set aside the order of the LD.CIT(A) on this issue, and direct the Assessing O....