TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on a plain reading of the provisions of Section 2 (22) (e) of the Act, no other conclusion can be reached. The question of law considered in the case of Gopal and Sons (2017 (1) TMI 331 - SUPREME COURT ) was different from the issue which arises in the present matter. The question of law which the Supreme Court was called upon to consider was whether loans and advances received by a HUF could be deemed as a dividend within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The assessee in that case was the HUF and the payment in question was made to the HUF. The shares were held by the Karta of the HUF. It is in this context that the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that HUF was the beneficial shareholder. In the instant case, however, both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of all containerized import/export consignment in Container Freight Station ? For the Asst. Year: 2007-08 : iii.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that deemed dividend has to be assessed only in the hands of the registered shareholders for whose benefit, the money was advanced ? iv.Whether Appellate Tribunal is correct in deleting the addition made towards deemed dividend on the ground that the assessee is not a registered shareholder of M/s.Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd. from whom advance was received by the assesee-company for the benefit of the shareholders who are also the common shareholders, holding more than 10% of shares, in assessee-company as well as in M/s.Indev Logistics P. Ltd. ?'' 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 4 are concerned, the following brief facts are required to be noticed: 4.1.The assessee-company, evidently, received a capital advance in a sum of ₹ 1,09,50,000/- from an entity by the name of Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd. The assessee-company as well as the said entity, i.e.Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd., admittedly have common shareholders. The shares in the assessee-company to the extent of 50% are held by Mr.Xavier Britto, while the balance shares are held by Smt.Vimalarani Britto. In so far as Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, shares are held likewise by the said individuals, though in a different ratio. Mr.Xavier Britto holds 60% of the shares in Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd., while Smt.Vimalarani Britto holds the balance 40% shar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.Mr.Senthil Kumar, however, contends to the contrary and relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gopal and Sons (HUF) vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-XI, (2017) 77 taxmann.com 71 (SC). 5.1.In our view, the question of law considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal and Sons (supra) was different from the issue which arises in the present matter. The question of law which the Supreme Court was called upon to consider was whether loans and advances received by a HUF could be deemed as a dividend within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The assessee in that case was the HUF and the payment in question was made to the HUF. The shares were held by the Karta of the HUF. It is in this context that the Supre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
