TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (8) TMI 323
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d MoU dt. 9th Feb., 1997 and provisions of s. 2(22)(e) only apply to either a loan or advance and deposit is neither a loan nor advance. (b) Provisions of s. 2(22)(e) are deeming provisions and, therefore, have to be interpreted strictly." 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of letting out of bungalow for film shooting, etc. During the year, it had shown Rs. 2,25,00,000 as loans and advances. It received an amount of Rs. 2,33,31,427 from M/s Silvasa Estate (P) Ltd., in pursuance of memorandum of understanding dt. 9th Feb., 1997. As per this memorandum of understanding, the assessee and M/s Silvasa Estate (P) Ltd. wanted to start a new company with a view to carry out editing, shooting, dubbing, recording and allied business in the name and style of M/s Silvasa Entertainment (P) Ltd. 4. The AO noted that the intended new business did not start and the amount of Rs. 2,33,31,427 given to the assessee remained with the assessee. It is stated on behalf of the assessee that the amount had been advanced in pursuance of the said memorandum of understanding. M/s Silvasa Estate (P) showed accumulated profits/reserves and surplus of Rs. 11,06,475 in its balance sheet, as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the party of the first part immediately on signing of this MOU." 9. The stress is on "deposit". It is submitted that from this para 7 of the MOU, the intention for the parties is clear that the amount was to be given as "deposit". The deposit was given in pursuance of the agreement. The assessee had shown the amount under the head of "current liability and provisions". When it was felt that the project was not feasible, the agreement was cancelled and the deposit of Rs. 2.25 crores was returned. Sec. 2(22)(e) applies to loans and advances, and not to deposit like the one in question here. The provisions of s. 2(22)(e) comprise a deeming fiction, where loan or advance is treated as dividend. The objective of the legislature in enacting the deeming provisions was to prevent evasion of tax on dividend by closely-held companies by resorting to loans to substantially interested shareholders, instead of paying dividend. This view was expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Navnit Lal C. Javeri vs. K.K. Sen, AAC (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC). The object of s. 2(22)(e), as per the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. H.K. Mital (1996) 219 ITR 420 (All), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch was lower than the rate for corporation tax on closely-held companies. Therefore, ss. 104 to 109 stood omitted by the Finance Act, 1987. However, due to such deletion, there was a likelihood of closely-held companies not distributing their profits to shareholders by way of dividends, but by way of loans or advances so that these be not taxed in the hands of the shareholders. It was to forestall this manipulation that s. 2(22)(e) was amended. Under the extant provisions of the said section, payments by way of loans or advances to shareholders having substantial interest in a company to the extent to which the company possessed accumulated profits, were treated as dividend. The shareholders having substantial interest were those having a shareholding carrying not less than 20 per cent voting power as per the provisions of s. 2(32). The amendment of the definition extended its application to payments made to a shareholder holding not less than 10 per cent of the voting power, or to a concern in which the shareholder was having substantial interest. 12. The amended provisions of s. 2(22)(e) are, thus, to apply in a case where a shareholder has 10 per cent or more of the equity ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....licable. 15. In the following cases, it has been held to the effect that a deeming fiction should be carried to its logical end, in accord with the purpose of its enactment and no further : (i) CIT vs. P.K. Badiani (1970) 76 ITR 369 (Bom) (ii) CIT vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (1990) 87 CTR (Bom) 98 : (1991) 187 ITR 1 (Bom) (iii) CIT vs. Amarchand B. Doshi (1991) 96 CTR (Bom) 136 : (1992) 194 ITR 56 (Bom) (iv) Caltex Oil Refining (I) Ltd. vs. CIT (1993) 113 CTR (Bom) 358 : (1993) 202 ITR 375 (Bom) (v) CIT vs. Shrishakti Trading Co. (1994) 118 CTR (Bom) 196 : (1994) 207 ITR 442 (Bom). In the case before us, however, the taxing authorities have stretched the deeming fiction contained in s. 2(22)(e) beyond its outer reaches in applying the said provision to the assessee who clearly does not come within its four corners. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in CIT vs. Shaan Finance (P) Ltd. (1998) 146 CTR (SC) 110 : (1998) 231 ITR 308 (SC), inter alia, that in interpreting a fiscal statute, the Court cannot proceed to make good the deficiencies if there be any. It must interpret the statute as it stands and in case ....