Skip to main content

‘Deemed Dividend’ liability of Holding Company

In DCIT v. M/s. The Hooghly Mills Co.Ltd, the ITAT Kolkata held that shareholding by Subsidiary Company is irrelevant while considering ‘deemed dividend’ liability of Holding Company under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. Assessing Officer, while completing assessment against the assessee-Company, found that assessee had during the previous year accepted the loans of Rs.10,20,00,000/- from M/s. Mega Resources Ltd, in which the subsidiary company of the assessee holds equity shares. The Officer, considering  the shareholding of both the assessee and its subsidiary company and concluded that the assessee held more than 10% of the voting power in M/s. Mega Resources Ltd,. and therefore, the assessee is liable to pay tax on ‘deemed dividend’ under provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. The first appellate authority allowed the plea of the assessee on first appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority, the department approached the Tribunal relying on the recent Apex Court ruling in Gopal & Sons (HUF) vs CIT wherein it was held that the karta is a member of the HUF and therefore the shareholding of the karta should be held to be on behalf of the HUF. Dismissing the appeal, the bench noticed that the above decision is not applicable in the instant case since the shareholding of the assessee and shareholding by its subsidiaries cannot be equated as to a case of shares held by Karta of a HUF in his capacity as Karta of HUF. It was observed that “the Assessee was a registered and beneficial shareholder of shares of M/S.Mega Resources Ltd., that conferred voting rights of only 1.7%. It is only this share holding that has to be considered for applying the first limb of Section 2(22)( e ) of the Act and the shareholding of the Assessee’s subsidiary M/S.Hooghly Mills Projects Ltd., should not be considered and it is irrelevant. The question in the present case is not even as to whether the Assessee is a beneficial shareholder of the shares held by M/S.Hoogly Mills Projects Ltd.”

Read more at: http://www.taxscan.in/shareholding-subsidiary-co-irrelevant-considering-deemed-dividend-liability-holding-co-itat-kolkata/8159/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376
2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551
3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467
4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298
5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567)



5.The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i)Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii)Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a)Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b)Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii)Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv)Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v)Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects…

Passport - DRT - power to impound - High Court

1) Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D.Ramarathnam. Asst. Passport Officer, 1967 (3) SCR 52
2) Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 (1) SCC 248
3) Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. v. Grapco Industries Ltd., (1994) 4 SCC 710
4) Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2008 (3) SCC 674
5) Damji Valaji Shah & another Vs. L.I.C. of India & others [AIR 1966 SC 135]
6) Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & others [1999 (7) SCC 76]
7) Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others [AIR 1999 SC 3125]
8) Sanjeev R.Apte v. I.F.C.I. Ltd., and others, 2008 (154) DLT 77
9) Smt.Annai Jayabharathi v. The Debt Recovery Tribunal & Anr., CDJ 2005 Ker HC 171
10) Allahabad Bank v. Radhakrishna Maity, AIR 1999 SC 3426
11) Ramalinga v. Radha, 2011 (4) CTC 481
12) Sinnaswami Chettiar v. Aligi Goundan and others, AIR 1924 Madras 893 (OVERRULED)
13) Nallagatti Goundan v. Ramana Gounda and others, AIR 1925 Madras 170
14) Income Tax Officer v. M.K.Mohammad…

DISTINCTION BETWEEN NECESSARY & PROPER PARTY

Who is Necessary to Proper Party

Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum, [1959] SCR 1111, relied on. Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd., (1956) 1 All E.R. 273 and Dollfus Mieg et Compagnie S.A. v. Bank of England, (1950) 2 All E.R. 611, referred to.

National Textile Workers’ Union, etc. v. P.R. Ramakrishnan and Ors., [1983] 1 SCR 922,

distinguished.

Meaning of Necessary or Proper Party

Whether Court could direct plaintiff to add lessee as defendant in suit.

Whether Court has discretion to direct a plaintiff, though dominus litis, to implead a person as a necessary party.

The Supreme Court of India in Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay, (1992) 2 SCC 524 : 1992 (2) SCR 1 : JT 1992 (2) SC 136 : 1992 (1) Scale 530 : 1992 (1) CCC 594 : 1992 (1) RCR 644 : 1992 (2) UJ 181 held that a party can be joined as defendant even though the plaintiff does not think that he has any cause of action against him.

A bench comprisi…