Exempting Non-Shareholder Entities From Deemed Dividend Additions Under Section 2(22)(e)
Issue
Whether an addition on account of a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be legally sustained in the hands of an entity that is not a registered or beneficial shareholder of the closely held company advancing the loan.
Facts
-
The case pertains to the Assessment Year 2014-15 regarding an addition made under the deemed dividend provisions.
-
The Revenue sought to tax certain loans or advances made by a closely held company to the assessee under Section 2(22)(e).
-
The assessee was not a registered or beneficial shareholder in the company from which the loans or advances were received.
Decision
-
Held, yes: An addition on account of a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) can only be made in the hands of a person or entity who is both a registered and a beneficial shareholder.
-
Held, yes: Since the assessee did not hold registered or beneficial shares in the advancing company, the foundational requirement of Section 2(22)(e) was not satisfied.
-
Held, yes: The addition made by the lower tax authorities on account of a deemed dividend was unsustainable in law and was ordered to be deleted, ruling in favor of the assessee.
Key Takeaways
-
Shareholder Status is Mandatory: For Section 2(22)(e) to be triggered, the recipient of the loan or advance must be a registered or beneficial owner of shares carrying at least 10% of the voting power in the lending company.
-
Non-Shareholder Immunity: Even if a business entity receives a loan or an advance from a corporate entity, the tax department cannot label it a “deemed dividend” in the hands of the recipient if that recipient does not own shares in the lending entity.
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Principal Commissioner of Income-tax
v.
Apeejay Surendra Amanagement Services (P.) Ltd.
*
Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Uday Kumar, JJ.
ITAT/242/2025
GA/1 & 2/2026
APRIL 21, 2026
Amit Sharma and Abhishek Kr. Agrahari, Advs. for the Appellant. Avra Mazumder, Ms. Alisha Das and Ms. Rupomita Ghosh, Advs. for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. There is a delay of 477 days in filing the appeal. We are satisfied with the explanation offered for not preferring the appeal within time. Therefore, the delay is condoned. The application being GA/1/2026 is allowed.
3. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 19th February, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ Bench, Kolkata in Apeejay Surrendra Management Services (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT 205 ITD 737 (Kolkata – Trib.)/ [ITA No. 988/Kol/2023, for the assessment year 2014-15.
4. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration :
“Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law to hold that the addition on account of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act, 1961, could only be made in the hands of the registered/beneficial shareholders, ignoring the fact that the Section 2(22)(e) does not contain any such specific provision or restriction and nowhere provides as to who is to be taxed in respect of such income ?”
5. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent/assessee had submitted that the question of law raised in this appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Madhur Housing & Development Co. 401 ITR 152 (SC) as well as the decisions in CIT v. Ankitech (P.) Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 14 (Delhi) and CIT v. Checkpoint Apparel Labelling Solutions (India) Ltd. (Madras). There is nothing brought on record by the revenue to point out any distinguishing feature for us not to follow the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the decisions referred above.
7. Thus, following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhur Housing & Development Co. (supra), Ankitech (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Checkpoint Apparel Labelling Solutions (India) Ltd. (supra) the appeal is dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue.
8. The stay application IA No: GA/2/2026 is also dismissed.