Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • No S. 2 (22) (E) "Deemed Dividend" If Loan To Shareholder Is On Quid Pro Quo Basis

    Uploaded by

    jaksandco
    45 views1 page
    The assessee, a shareholder of a private company, received a loan from the company. She argued the loan was not a "deemed dividend" under section 2(22)(e) of the tax code because she had provided a personal guarantee and collateral to enable the company to obtain credit, entitling her to withdraw funds for personal use. The AO rejected her claim but the CIT(A) accepted it. On appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, holding that not every payment from a company to shareholders is necessarily a loan under section 2(22)(e). In this case, the amount was for the assessee's short-term cash needs and her guarantee had reduced her liquidity

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    No s. 2(22)(e) “Deemed Dividend” If Loan To Shareholder Is On Quid Pro Quo Basis

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The assessee, a shareholder of a private company, received a loan from the company. She argued the loan was not a "deemed dividend" under section 2(22)(e) of the tax code because she had provided a personal guarantee and collateral to enable the company to obtain credit, entitling her to withdraw funds for personal use. The AO rejected her claim but the CIT(A) accepted it. On appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, holding that not every payment from a company to shareholders is necessarily a loan under section 2(22)(e). In this case, the amount was for the assessee's short-term cash needs and her guarantee had reduced her liquidity

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    45 views1 page

    No S. 2 (22) (E) "Deemed Dividend" If Loan To Shareholder Is On Quid Pro Quo Basis

    Uploaded by

    jaksandco
    The assessee, a shareholder of a private company, received a loan from the company. She argued the loan was not a "deemed dividend" under section 2(22)(e) of the tax code because she had provided a personal guarantee and collateral to enable the company to obtain credit, entitling her to withdraw funds for personal use. The AO rejected her claim but the CIT(A) accepted it. On appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, holding that not every payment from a company to shareholders is necessarily a loan under section 2(22)(e). In this case, the amount was for the assessee's short-term cash needs and her guarantee had reduced her liquidity

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Direct Tax Update / Nov.

    22 ,2012

    NO Sec. 2(22)(e) Deemed Dividend If Loan To Shareholder Is On Quid Pro Quo Basis
    ACIT vs. G. Sreevidya (ITAT Chennai)
    The assessee, a substantial shareholder of a closed held company, availed of a loan from the company. She claimed that the said loan was not assessable as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) as she had given a personal guarantee and collateral security to a third party to enable the company to avail of credit facilities and in return she was entitled to withdraw funds from the company as and when required by her for personal purposes. The AO rejected the claim though the CIT(A) accepted it.

    On appeal by the department to the Tribunal, HELD dismissing the appeal: Every payment by a company to its shareholders may not be a loan/ advance so as to come within the ambit of s. 2(22)(e). In the present case, the amount was withdrawn by the assessee from the company only to meet her short term cash requirements. By virtue of offering personal guarantee and collateral security for the benefit of the company, the liquidity position of the assessee had gone down. In the strict sense, the amount forwarded by the company to the assessee was not in the shape of advances or loans. The arrangement between the assessee and the company was merely for the sake of convenience arising out of business expediency. (Pradip Kumar Malhotra 338 ITR 538 (Cal) & Creative Dyeing & Printing 318 ITR 476 (Del) followed)

    For further information please contact: jaksandco@gmail.com


    Disclaimer: This newsletter is not an advertisement or any form of solicitation. This newsletter has been compiled for general information of clients and does not constitute professional guidance or legal opinion. Readers should obtain appropriate professional advice.

    2012 JAKS & Co., India All rights reserved

    You might also like