Tuesday 27 December 2011

Pradip Kumar Malhotra v CIT (2011) - Calcutta High Court.


Advance given by company to assessee shareholder by way of compensation for keeping his property as mortgage on behalf of company to reap benefit of loan could not be treated as deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e). Phrase ‘ by way of advance or loan’ appearing in section 2(22)(e) must be construed to mean those advancesor loans which a shareholder enjoys for simply on account of beinga person who is beneficial owner of shareholding not less than 10 percent of voting power , but if such loan or advance is given to such share holder as a consequence of any further consideration which is beneficial to company received from such a share holder, such advances or loan cannot be treatedto be deemed dividend with in the meaning of section 2(22)(e).

No comments:

Post a Comment