TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 52
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ["learned CIT(A)"], which in turn arose from the separate order passed under section 237 of the Act, for the assessment years 1999-00 to 2001-02 and 2003-04 to 2006-07. 2. Since all the appeals pertain to the same assessee and involve similar issues arising out of a similar factual matrix, these appeals were heard together as a matter of convenience and are being decided by way of this consolidated order. With the consent of the parties, the Revenue's appeal for the assessment year 1999-00 is considered as the lead case, and the decision rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Revenue's appeals for the other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny and thus is exigible to tax on dividend as defined under section 2(22) of the Act. It was held that during the year under consideration, the assessee transferred Rs. 31.58 crore to the credit of the Central Government as dividend and therefore, the provisions of section 115-O of the Act are applicable to such transfer. Thus, the AO held that the assessee, being a domestic company, and the payment of dividend to the Central Government is taxable under section 2(22) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO computed the tax on dividends and interest thereon at Rs. 3.63 crore and rejected the application filed by the assessee under section 237 of the Act. 6. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee followin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deciding this issue in favour of the assessee, observed as follows: - "Ground No.1:- At the outset the appellant has argued that the payment made by the appellant to the Central Government in terms of Section 23(2) of the Exim Bank Act is not dividend and hence the provisions of Section 115-0 of the Act are not applicable to it. For this purpose, the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench "G" in the appellant's own case for A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2015-16 dated 14.02.2020, wherein it was held as under:- "13. Now, the question arises what is the ordinary meaning of the word 'dividend'. It is not necessary for us to look into the dictionaries inasmuch as the answer to su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....their authoritative construction by superior courts, they are presumed to have been used in the same sense when used in a subsequent legislation in the same or similar context. In view of the above observations, the ordinary meaning of the word 'dividend' as declared by the Apex Court in the case of Nalin Behari Lall Singha (supra) has to be assumed tor the purpose of Section 2(22) of the Act since the Legislature has not deviated, expressly or impliedly, from the meaning declared by the Apex Court. 15. In the present case, the assessee is the creation of Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. Section 5 of the said Act provides that original capital of the Corporation would be 5 crores of rupees which shall be provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o shares of bank of India to its shareholders amounted to distribution of dividend. That means that dividend can be distributed in cash or kind. To the same effect is the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the ca se of Ujjain General Trading Society (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 315. In the case of Smt. Mrudulaben B. Patel v. Asstt. CIT (2003) 85 ITD 463 (Ahd.) (SMC), the question was whether any part undisclosed income of a company received by director could be said to be income chargeable to tax. In the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1962) 46 ITR 640 (SC), the question was whether payment made as dividend by a company to its shareholders would lose the character of dividend merely because it was paid out of capit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sdictional Tribunal, the appellant's application u/s. 237 of the Income-tax Act is admissible. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 3,63,00,000/- made by the A.O. u/s. 2(22) is found to be unjustified and is hereby deleted. Accordingly, Ground No.1 of the appeal is allowed." 10. From the perusal of the findings of the learned CIT(A), it is evident that the learned CIT(A) followed the judicial precedents in assessee's own case rendered by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 7720/Mum/2014, etc., for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16, wherein it was held that the payment by the assessee to the Central Government is not dividend and, therefore, the provisions of section 115-O of the Act are not applicable. In the absence o....