Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Ankitech Pvt Ltd

REPORTABLE * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA No.462 of 2009 with ITA Nos. 2087/2010, 901/2010, 902/2010, 903/2010, 960/2010, 1327/2010, 1436/2010, 1502/2010, 1865/2010, 461/2010, 998/2009, 1421/2009, 1618/2010, 1758/2010, 1978/2010, 622/2011, 623/2011, 270/20111588/2010, 211/2010, 352/2010 & 2014/2010. % Reserved On: April 27, 2011. Pronounced On: May 11, 2011. 1)ITA No.462 of 2009 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS ANKITECH PVT LTD. . . .RESPONDENT 2)ITA No.2087 of 2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS ANKITECH PVT LTD. . . .RESPONDENT 3)ITA No.901 of 2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS M/s MUKUL INTERNATIONAL LTD. . . .RESPONDENT 4)ITA No.902 of 2010 ITA No.462 of 2009 & Ors. Page 1 of 50 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS . . .RESPONDENT M/s MUKUL INTERNATIONAL LTD. 5)ITA No.903 of 2010COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS M/s MUKUL INTERNATIONAL LTD. . . .RESPONDENT 6)ITA No.960 of 2010COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS M/s R.C. ENERGY METERING PVT. LTD. . . .RESPONDENT 7)ITA No.1327 of 2010COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS ACTIVE SECURITIES PVT. LTD. . . .RESPONDENT 8)ITA No.1436 of 2010COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT ITA No.462 of 2009 & Ors. VERSUS P AND A ESTATES PVT. LTD. . . .RESPONDENT 9)ITA No.1502 of 2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS MEHRA STORE . . .RESPONDENT 10)ITA No.1865 of 2010COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS MOKUL INTERNATIONAL LTD. . . .RESPONDENT 11)ITA No.461 of 2011COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS COSMOTECH COMMUNICATIONS PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. . . .RESPONDENT 12)ITA No.998 of 2009 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS MAGIC INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., New Delhi . . .RESPONDENT 13)ITA No.1421 of 2009COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS R.C. ENERGY MATERING PVT. LTD. . . .RESPONDENT 14)ITA No.1618 of 2010COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS KAISER EXPORT PVT LTD . . .RESPONDENT 15)ITA No.1758 of 2010COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS PEARL INDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE PVT. LTD. . . .RESPONDENT 16)ITA No.1978 of 2010COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS STELCO INDIA P. LTD. . . .RESPONDENT 17)ITA No.622 of 2011 ITA No.462 of 2009 & Ors. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS CAPARO INDIA DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. . . .RESPONDENT 18)ITA No.623 of 2011COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS CAPARO INDIA PVT. LTD. . . .RESPONDENT 19)ITA No.270 of 2011COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS SHIVA COMMODITIES AND DERIVATIVES . . .RESPONDENT Reserved On: April 29, 2011 Pronounced On: May 11, 2011 20)ITA No.1588 of 2010COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS TIMELESS FASHIONS PVT. LTD. . . .RESPONDENT 21)ITA No.211 of 2010 ITA No.462 of 2009 & Ors. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS NANDLALA SECURITIES PVT. LTD. . . .RESPONDENT 22)ITA No.352 of 2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS INDIAN TECHNOCRAFT LTD. . . .RESPONDENT Reserved On: May 02, 2011 Pronounced On: May 11, 2011 23)ITA No.2014 of 2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS ROXY INVESTMENT . . .RESPONDENT Counsels for the Revenue: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Anand. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel. Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Sr. Standing Counsel. Counsels for the Assessee:Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocates. Mr. Salil Kapoor, Advocate. Dr. Rakesh Kapoor with Ms. Poonam Ahuja, Advocates. Mr. Satyen Sethi with Mr. A.T. Panda, Advocates. Mr. Rajat Navet, Advocate. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS INDIAN TECHNOCRAFT LTD. . . .RESPONDENT Reserved On: May 02, 2011 Pronounced On: May 11, 2011 23)ITA No.2014 of 2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS ROXY INVESTMENT . . .RESPONDENT Counsels for the Revenue: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Anand. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel. Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Sr. Standing Counsel. Counsels for the Assessee:Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocates. Mr. Salil Kapoor, Advocate. Dr. Rakesh Kapoor with Ms. Poonam Ahuja, Advocates. Mr. Satyen Sethi with Mr. A.T. Panda, Advocates. Mr. Rajat Navet, Advocate. Mr. Sandeep Sapra, Advocate. CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? A.K. SIKRI, J. 1.In all these appeals, same questions of law touching the interpretation that is to be accorded to the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the amount received by the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‗the Act‘), arise for consideration. Our purpose would be served by taking note of the questions of law framed in ITA No.462 of 2009, as concededly answer thereto shall cover the outcome of all these appeals. The interpretation that is to be accorded to the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the amount received by the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‗the Act‘), arise for consideration. Our purpose would be served by taking note of the questions of law framed in ITA No.462 of 2009, as concededly answer thereto shall cover the outcome of all these appeals. The substantial questions of law on which this appeal was admitted are as under: ―a) Whether ITAT was correct in law in deleting the addition of `6,32,72,265/- made by the Assessing Officer in the hands of assessee company under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act? addition of `6,32,72,265/- made by the Assessing Officer in the hands of assessee company under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act? b) Whether ITAT was correct in law in holding that the addition could not have been made by the Assessing Officer in the assessee company as it was not the shareholder of M/s Jackson? addition could not have been made by the Assessing Officer in the assessee company as it was not the shareholder of M/s Jackson? c) Whether ITAT has correctly interpreted the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act? of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act? d) Whether order passed by ITAT is perverse in law and on facts when it deleted the addition holding that though the amount received by the assessee by way of book entry falls within the ambit of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act but the same cannot be assessed in the hands of Assessee?” on facts when it deleted the addition holding that though the amount received by the assessee by way of book entry falls within the ambit of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act but the same cannot be assessed in the hands of Assessee?” 2.Though as many as four questions are framed, it is with singular focus, viz., whether the assessee who was not the shareholders of M/s. Jackson Generators (P) Ltd. (JGPL) could be treated as covered by the definition of ‗dividend‘ as contained in Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‗the Act‘). This issue has arisen under the following circumstances.singular focus, viz., whether the assessee who was not the shareholders of M/s. Jackson Generators (P) Ltd. (JGPL) could be treated as covered by the definition of ‗dividend‘ as contained in Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‗the Act‘). This issue has arisen under the following circumstances. 2.Though as many as four questions are framed, it is with singular focus, viz., whether the assessee who was not the shareholders of M/s. Jackson Generators (P) Ltd. (JGPL) could be treated as covered by the definition of ‗dividend‘ as contained in Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‗the Act‘). This issue has arisen under the following circumstances.singular focus, viz., whether the assessee who was not the shareholders of M/s. Jackson Generators (P) Ltd. (JGPL) could be treated as covered by the definition of ‗dividend‘ as contained in Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‗the Act‘). This issue has arisen under the following circumstances. 3.The assessee filed the return declaring income at ‗Nil‘ under normal provisions but at `1.45 Crores under Section 115JB of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee company had received normal provisions but at `1.45 Crores under Section 115JB of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee company had received 4. advances of `6,32,72,265/- by way of book entry from JGPL and the shareholders having substantial interest in the assessee company were also having 10% of the voting power in JGPL. The AO specifically took note of the share-holding pattern in the assessee company as well as in JGPL, which was as following: ―The share holding pattern of the assessee company (hereinafter referred as APL) as on 31.03.2003 is as follows: The share holding pattern of a company M/s Jakson Generators P. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as JGPL) is as under:- The AO was of the view that as the two Guptas were the members holding substantial interests in JGPL which had provided loans and advances to the assessee company and these very Guptas had substantial interest even in the assessee company, for the purpose of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act the amount received by the assessee from JGPL which constituted ‗advances and loans‘ would be treated as deemed dividend within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act and added the aforesaid amount to the income of the assessee. The assessee had specifically pleaded that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act would not be attracted as the assessee was not a shareholder in JGPL. According to the assessee, for the purposes of application of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, one of the essential conditions was that the concern receiving the said money has to be that income is to be assessed at the hands of shareholder. The AO rejected this contention. 5.CIT (A) affirmed the aforesaid view taken by the AO. 6. However, in further appeal before the Tribunal, the appeal of the assessee has been allotted vide impugned order dated 06.06.2008 thereby deleting the addition made by the AO on account of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity ‗the Tribunal‘) held that though the amount received by the assessee by way of book entry is a deemed dividend within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, the same cannot be assessed in the hands of assessee company, as it was not the shareholder in the company JGPL. A dividend cannot be paid to a non-shareholder. It would have to be taxed, if at all, in the hands of the shareholders who have a substantial interest in the assessee concern and also holding not less than 10% of the voting power in JGPL. 7. We may point out at this stage that the Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Special Bench, Mumbai in the case of upon the decision of the Special Bench, Mumbai in the case of ACIT Vs. Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd. 118 ITD 1 (Mum.) (SB). The said decision of the Special Bench has been affirmed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Universal Medicare (P) Ltd. 190 Taxman 144 (Bom.) 7. We may point out at this stage that the Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Special Bench, Mumbai in the case of upon the decision of the Special Bench, Mumbai in the case of ACIT Vs. Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd. 118 ITD 1 (Mum.) (SB). The said decision of the Special Bench has been affirmed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Universal Medicare (P) Ltd. 190 Taxman 144 (Bom.) 8.Before we discuss the aforesaid decision, it would be prudent to take note of the provision of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. It reads as under: ―(a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx (d) xxx xxx xxx (e) any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company or otherwise) [made after the 31st day of May, 1987, by way of advance or loan to a, being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares (not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend whether with or without a right to participate in profits) holding not less than ten per cent of the voting power, or to any concern in which such shareholder is a member or a partner and in which he has a substantial interest (hereafter in this clause referred to as the said concern)] or any payment by any such company on behalf, or for the individual benefit, of any such shareholder, to the extent to which the company in either case possesses accumulated profits; but ―dividend‖ does not include— (i) a distribution made in accordance with sub-clause (c) or sub-clause (d) in respect of any share issued for full cash consideration, where the holder of the share is not (c) or sub-clause (d) in respect of any share issued for full cash consideration, where the holder of the share is not 9. entitled in the event of liquidation to participate in the surplus assets ; [(ia) a distribution made in accordance with sub-clause (c) or sub-clause (d) in so far as such distribution is attributable to the capitalised profits of the company representing bonus shares allotted to its equity shareholders after the 31st day of March, 1964, [and before the 1st day of April, 1965] ;] (ii) any advance or loan made to a shareholder [or the said concern] by a company in the ordinary course of its business, where the lending of money is a substantial part of the business of the company ; (iii) any dividend paid by a company which is set off by the company against the whole or any part of any sum previously paid by it and treated as a dividend within the meaning of sub-clause (e), to the extent to which it is so set off; [(iv)any payment made by a company on purchase of its own shares from a shareholder in accordance with the provisions of section 77A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (v)any distribution of shares pursuant to a demerger by the resulting company to the shareholders of the demerged company (whether or not there is a reduction of capital in the demerged company).]‖ It was not in dispute before us that all other conditions stipulated in this provision stands satisfied in the present case. There is a payment by a company (i.e. JGPL) of a sum which is in the nature of ‗advance or loans‘ and the payment is within the limits of accumulated profits possessed by JPGL. The payment is not made to the Guptas directly, who are the shareholders, but to the assessee which is admittedly a concern in which such shareholders, i.e., Guptas are also members/shareholders and they have substantial interest in the assessee as is clear from the share pattern disclosed above (v)any distribution of shares pursuant to a demerger by the resulting company to the shareholders of the demerged company (whether or not there is a reduction of capital in the demerged company).]‖ It was not in dispute before us that all other conditions stipulated in this provision stands satisfied in the present case. There is a payment by a company (i.e. JGPL) of a sum which is in the nature of ‗advance or loans‘ and the payment is within the limits of accumulated profits possessed by JPGL. The payment is not made to the Guptas directly, who are the shareholders, but to the assessee which is admittedly a concern in which such shareholders, i.e., Guptas are also members/shareholders and they have substantial interest in the assessee as is clear from the share pattern disclosed above as per Section 2(32) of the Act, in order to have substantial interest in the company such shareholders i.e. (Guptas) in the present case who carry no less than 20% of the voting power. In the instant case, the share holding of Guptas is much more than prescribed 20%. It is for this reason whether all the conditions stipulated in Clause (e) of Section 2(22) of the Act stand satisfied. As a fortiori, the payment of ‗advance or loans‘ made by JGPL to the concern, i.e., the assessee would be treated as dividend within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The dispute which has arisen, in the scenario is to whether this is to be treated as dividend income in the form of dividend advance of the shareholders or advance of the said concern (i.e. the assessees herein). Whereas the Department has taken it as income at the hands of the assessee, as per the assessee it cannot be treated as dividend income to their account. The Tribunal has accepted this plea of the assessee holding that such dividend income is to be taxed at the hands of shareholders. 10.In Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd. (supra), the Special Bench, Mumbai took note of the historical background of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. There cannot be any dispute that the historical background narrated by the Special Bench is flawless and therefore, we can reproduce the same: (a) Section 2(6A)(e) of the IT Act, 1922, as introduced by the Finance Act, 1955 corresponding to Section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act, 1961 was as follows: Any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested within the meaning of Section 23A, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company or otherwise) by way of advance or loan to a shareholder, or any payment by any such company on behalf, or for the individual benefit, of a shareholder to the extent to which the company in either case possesses accumulated profits. (b) Section 2(22) of the IT Act, 1961, defines dividend. Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, which is equivalent to Section 2(6A)(e) of the 1922 Act, as it existed originally in the IT Act, 1961, read as follows: Section 2(22) 'Dividend' includes- (a) to (d) ... (e) Any payment made by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company or otherwise) by way of advance or loan to a shareholder, being a person who has a substantial interest in the company, of any payment by any such company on behalf, or for the individual benefit, of any such shareholder, to the extent to which the company in either case possesses accumulated profits. (c) The aforesaid Clause (e) of the Act has been amended w.e.f. 1st April, 1988; the amended Clause (e) of the Act reads as follows: (a) to (d) ... (e) Any payment made by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company or otherwise) by way of advance or loan to a shareholder, being a person who has a substantial interest in the company, of any payment by any such company on behalf, or for the individual benefit, of any such shareholder, to the extent to which the company in either case possesses accumulated profits. (c) The aforesaid Clause (e) of the Act has been amended w.e.f. 1st April, 1988; the amended Clause (e) of the Act reads as follows: (e) Any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company or otherwise) made after the 31st May, 1987, by way of advance or loan to a shareholder, being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares (not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend whether with or without a right to participate in profits) holding not less than ten per cent of the voting power, or to any concern in which such shareholder is a member or a partner and in which he has a substantial interest (hereafter in this clause referred to as the said concern) or any payment by any such company on behalf, or for the individual benefit, of any such shareholder, to the extent to which the company in either case possesses accumulated profits. Explanation 3 to Section 2(22)(e) is as follows: Explanation 3 : For the purpose of this clause— (a)"concern" means an HUF, or a firm or an AOP or a BOI or a company; a BOI or a company; (b) A person shall be deemed to have a substantial interest in a concern, other than a company, if he is, at any time during the previous year, beneficially entitled to not less than twenty per cent of the income of such concern. 11.It is clear from the above that Under the 1922 Act, two categories of payments were considered as dividend viz., (a) any payment by way of advance or loan to a shareholder was considered as dividend paid to shareholder; or (b) any payment by any such company on behalf of or for the individual benefit of a shareholder was considered as dividend. In the 1961 Act, the very same two categories of payments were considered as dividend but an additional condition that payment should be to a shareholder being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares and who has a substantial interest in the company viz., shareholding which carries not less than twenty per cent of the voting power, was introduced. By the 1987 amendment w.e.f. 1st April, 1988, the condition that payment should be to a shareholder who is the beneficial owner of shares (not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend whether with or without a right to participate in profits) holding not less than ten per cent of the voting power was substituted. Thus, the percentage of voting power was reduced from twenty per cent to ten per cent. By the very same amendment, a new category of payment was also considered as dividend viz., payment to any concern in which such shareholder is a member or a partner and in which he has a substantial interest. Substantial interest has been defined to mean holding of shares carrying 20 per cent of voting power. 12.The controversy in the present case relates to this new category introduced by way of Amendment, viz., payment to any concern in which such shareholder is a member or a partner or in which he has a substantial interest. The Special Bench analyzed the language implied in creating this new category and spelt out the conditions which are required to be satisfied for attracting this category in Para 26 of its order, which reads as under: ―19. The provisions of Section 2(22)(e) create a fiction bringing in amounts paid otherwise than as dividend into the net of dividends. Therefore, this clause must be given a strict interpretation as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 12.The controversy in the present case relates to this new category introduced by way of Amendment, viz., payment to any concern in which such shareholder is a member or a partner or in which he has a substantial interest. The Special Bench analyzed the language implied in creating this new category and spelt out the conditions which are required to be satisfied for attracting this category in Para 26 of its order, which reads as under: ―19. The provisions of Section 2(22)(e) create a fiction bringing in amounts paid otherwise than as dividend into the net of dividends. Therefore, this clause must be given a strict interpretation as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. C.P. Sarathy Mudaliar. In the case of the assessee as well as the intervener there is no dispute that the companies which gave the loan or advance were one in which public are not substantially interested. Nor is there any dispute that these companies possess accumulated profits to the extent of the loan or advance. The three limbs of Section 2(22)(e) are as follows: Any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company or otherwise) made after the 31st May, 1987, by way of advance or loan. First limb (a) to a shareholder, being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares (not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend whether with or without a right to participate in profits) holding not less than ten per cent of the voting power. Second limb (b) or to any concern in which such shareholder is a member or a partner and in which he has a substantial interest (hereafter in this clause referred to as the said concern) Third limb (c) or any payment by any such company on behalf, or for the individual benefit of any such shareholder, to the extent to which the company in either case possesses accumulated profits. 20. In the case of CIT v. C.P. Sarathy Mudaliar (supra), provisions of Section 2(6A)(e) of the Act, 1922, which was synonymous to Section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act, 1961 came up for consideration. In the said case, members of HUF acquired shares in a company with the fund of the family. Loans were granted to HUF and the question was whether the loans could be treated as dividend income of the family falling within Section 2(6A)(e) of the Act, 1922. The apex Court held that only loans advanced to shareholders could be deemed to be dividends under Section 2(6A)(e) of the Act; the HUF could not be considered to be a 'shareholder' under Section 2(6A)(e) of the Act and hence, loans given to the HUF will not be considered as loans advanced to "shareholder" of the company and could not, therefore, be deemed to be its income. The apex Court further held that when the Act speaks of shareholder it refers to the registered shareholder. 21. The aforesaid decision of the apex Court in the case of C.P. Sarathy Mudaliar (supra) has been followed by the apex Court in the case of Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal v. CIT (supra). In this case, the company advanced the loans to the assessee HUF who was the beneficial owners of the shares in the company, but the shares were registered in the name of the individual Karta, who held the shares for and on behalf of the HUF. On the above facts, the question before the Supreme Court was whether the loans advanced to the HUF-beneficial owner of the shares-would be taxed as deemed dividend in the hands of the HUF. The Supreme Court held that the HUF being only the beneficial shareholder and not a registered shareholder would not fall within the purview of Section 2(6A)(e) of the 1922 Act. The apex Court observed as follows: ...What Section 2(6A)(e) is designed to strike at is advance or loan to a 'shareholder' and the word 'shareholder' can mean only a registered shareholder. It is difficult to see how a beneficial owner of shares whose name does not appear in the register of shareholders of the company can be said to be a 'shareholder'. He may be beneficially entitled to the share but he is certainly not a 'shareholder'. It is only the person whose name is entered in the register of the shareholders of the company as the holder of the shares who can be said to be a shareholder qua the company and not the person beneficially entitled to the shares. It is the former who is a 'shareholder' within the matrix and scheme of the company law and not the latter. We are, therefore, of the view that it is only where a loan is advanced by the company to a registered shareholder and the other conditions set out in Section 2(6A)(e) are satisfied that the amount of the loan would be liable to be regarded as 'deemed dividend' within the meaning of Section 2(6A)(e). 22. It is thus clear from the aforesaid pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that to attract the first limb of the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) the payment must be to a person who is a registered holder of shares. As already mentioned the condition under the 1922 Act and the 1961 Act regarding the payee being a shareholder remains the same and it is the condition that such shareholder should be beneficial owner of the shares and the percentage of voting power that such shareholder should hold that has been prescribed as an additional condition under the 1961 Act. The word "shareholder" alone existed in the definition of dividend in the 1922 Act. The expression "shareholder" has been interpreted under the 1922 Act to mean a registered shareholder. This expression "shareholder" found in the 1961 Act has to be therefore construed as applying only to registered shareholder. It is a principle of interpretation of statutes that where once certain words in an Act have received a judicial construction in one of the superior Courts, and the legislature has repeated them in a subsequent statute, the legislature must be taken to have used them according to the meaning which a Court of competent jurisdiction has given them. 23. In the 1961 Act, the word "shareholder" is followed by the following words "being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares". This expression used in Section 2(22)(e), both in the 1961 Act and in the amended provisions w.e.f. 1st April, 1988 only qualifies the word "shareholder" and does not in any way alter the position that the shareholder has to be a registered shareholder. These provisions also do not substitute the aforesaid requirement to a requirement of merely holding a beneficial interest in the shares without being a registered holder of shares. The expression "being" is a present participle. A participle is a word which is partly a verb and partly an adjective. In Section 2(22)(e), the present participle "being" is used to described the noun 'shareholder' like an adjective. The expression "being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares" is therefore a further requirement before a shareholder can be said to fall within the parameters of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In the 1961 Act, Section 2(22)(e) imposes a further condition that the shareholder has also to be beneficial owner of shares (not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend whether with or without a right to participate in profits) holding not less than ten per cent of the voting power. It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Departmental Representative that under the 1961 Act there is no requirement of a shareholder being a registered holder and that even a beneficial ownership of shares would be sufficient. 24. The expression "shareholder being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares" referred to in the first limb of Section 2(22)(e) refers to both a registered shareholder and beneficial shareholder. If a person is a registered shareholder but not the beneficial then the provision of Section 2(22)(e) will not apply. Similarly if a person is a beneficial shareholder but not a registered shareholder then also the first limb of provisions of Section 2(22)(e) will not apply. 25. The new category of payment which was considered as dividend introduced by the Finance Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1st April, 1988 by the second limb of Section 2(22)(e) is payment "to any concern in which such shareholder is a member or a partner and in which he has a substantial interest. It is this category of payment with which we are concerned in this reference. 26. The following conditions are required to be satisfied for application of the above category of payment to be regarded as dividend. They are: (a) There must be a payment to a concern by a company. (b) A person must be a shareholder of the company being a registered holder and beneficial owner of shares (not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend whether with or without a right to participate in profits) holding not less than ten per cent of the voting power. This is because of the expression "such shareholder" found in the relevant provision. This expression only refers to the shareholder referred to in the earlier part of Section 2(22)(e) viz., a registered and a beneficial holder of shares holding 10 per cent voting power. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Union of India us. Wazir Singh, while dealing with an expression "no such application" in the context of Rule 97 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 has held as follows: Generally the word 'such' refers only to previously indicated, characterized or specified. 'Such' is an adjective meaning, the one previously indicated or refers only to something which has been said before. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Mohan Lal and Anr. v. Grain Chambers Ltd. AIR 1959 All 279 has held as follows: In fact, it appears to us that the word 'such' is used before a noun in a latter part of a sentence, the proper construction in the English language is to hold that the same noun is being used after the word 'such' with all its characteristics which might have been indicated earlier in the same sentence. (c) The very same person referred to in (b) above must also be a member or a partner in the concern holding substantial interest in the concern viz., when the concern is not a company, he must at any time during the previous year, be beneficially entitled to not less than twenty per cent of the income of such concern; and where the concern is a company he must be the owner of shares, not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend whether with or without a right to participate in profits, carrying not less than twenty per cent of the voting power. (d) If the above conditions are satisfied then the payment by the company to the concern will be dividend.‖ 13.The Special Bench held that the intention behind this provision is to tax dividend in the hands of the shareholders. 14.The Bombay High Court while confirming the aforesaid decision of the Special Bench in the case of Universal Medicare (P.) Ltd. made the analysis this provision in the following manner: (d) If the above conditions are satisfied then the payment by the company to the concern will be dividend.‖ 13.The Special Bench held that the intention behind this provision is to tax dividend in the hands of the shareholders. 14.The Bombay High Court while confirming the aforesaid decision of the Special Bench in the case of Universal Medicare (P.) Ltd. made the analysis this provision in the following manner: ―8. Clause (e) of section 2(22) is not artistically worded. For facility of exposition, the contents can be broken down for analysis: (i) Clause (e) applies to any payment by a company not being a company in which the public is substantially interested of any sum, whether as representing a part of the assets of the company or otherwise made after the 31 May, 1987; (ii) Clause (e) covers a payment made by way of a loan or advance to (a) a shareholder, being a beneficial owner of shares (not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend whether with or without a right to participate in profits) holding not less than ten per cent of the voting power; or (b) any concern in which such shareholder is a member or a partner and in which he has a substantial interest; (iii) Clause (e) also includes in its purview any payment made by a company on behalf of or for the individual benefit, of any such shareholder; (iv) Clause (e) will apply to the extent to which the company, in either case, possesses accumulated profits. The remaining part f the provision is not material for the purposes of this appeal. 9. In order that the first part of Clause (e) of Section 2(22) is attracted, the payment by a company has to be by way of an advance or loan. The advance or loan has to be made, as the case may be, either to a shareholder, being a beneficial owner holding not less than ten per cent of the voting power or to any concern to which such a shareholder is a member or a partner and in which he has a substantial interest. The Tribunal in the present case has found that as a matter of fact no loan or advance was granted to the assessee, since the amount in question had actually been defalcated and was not reflected in the books of account of the assessee. The fact that there was a defalcation seems to have been accepted since this amount was allowed as a business loss during the course of assessment year 2006-2007. Consequently, according to the Tribunal the first requirement of there being an advance or loan was not fulfilled. In our view, the finding that there was no advance or loan is a pure finding of fact which does not give rise to any substantial question of law. However, even on the second aspect which has weighed with the Tribunal, we are of the view that the construction which has been placed on the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) is correct. Section 2(22)(e) defines the ambit of the expression 'dividend'. All payments by way of dividend have to be taxed in the hands of the recipient of the dividend namely the shareholder. The effect of Section 2(22) is to provide an inclusive definition of the expression dividend. Clause (e) expands the nature of payments which can be classified as a dividend. Clause (e) of Section 2(22) includes a payment made by the company in which the public is not substantially interested by way of an advance or loan to a shareholder or to any concern to which such shareholder is a member or partner, subject to the fulfillment of the requirements which are spelt out in the provision. Similarly, a payment made by a company on behalf, of for the individual benefit, of any such shareholder is treated by Clause (e) to be included in the expression 'dividend'. Consequently, the effect of Clause (e) of Section 2(22) is to broaden the ambit of the expression 'dividend' by including certain payments which the company has made by way of a loan or advance or payments made on behalf of or for the individual benefit of a shareholder. The definition does not alter the legal position that dividend has to be taxed in the hands of the shareholder. Consequently in the present case the payment, even assuming that it was a dividend, would have to be taxed not in the hands of the assessee but in the hands of the shareholder. The Tribunal was, in the circumstances, justified in coming to the conclusion that, in any event, the payment could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee. We may in concluding note that the basis on which the assessee is sought to be taxed in the present case in respect of the amount of Rs. 32,00,000/- is that there was a dividend under Section 2(22)(e) and no other basis has been suggested in the order of the Assessing Officer.‖ 15.At this stage, it will be useful to point out that even the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hotel Hilltop 217 CTR (Raj.) 527 had interpreted the provision in identical manner. It would be apt to quote Para 7 of the said judgment which contains the relevant discussion: the assessee. We may in concluding note that the basis on which the assessee is sought to be taxed in the present case in respect of the amount of Rs. 32,00,000/- is that there was a dividend under Section 2(22)(e) and no other basis has been suggested in the order of the Assessing Officer.‖ 15.At this stage, it will be useful to point out that even the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hotel Hilltop 217 CTR (Raj.) 527 had interpreted the provision in identical manner. It would be apt to quote Para 7 of the said judgment which contains the relevant discussion: ―The more important aspect, being the requirement of Section 2(22)(e) is, that "the payment may be made to any concern, in which such shareholder is a member, or the partner, and in which he has substantial interest, or any payment by any such company, on behalf, or for the individual benefit of any such shareholder...." Thus, the substance of the requirement is, that the payment should be made on behalf of, or for the individual benefit of any such shareholder, obviously, the provision is intended to attract the liability of tax on the person, on whose behalf, or for whose individual benefit, the amount is paid by the company, whether to the shareholder, or to the concern firm. In which event, it would fall within the expression "deemed dividend". Obviously, income from dividend, is taxable as income from other sources, under Section 56 of the Act, and in the very nature of things, the income has to be, of the person earning the income. The assessee in the present case is not shown to be one of the persons, being shareholder. Of course the two individuals being Roop Kumar and Devendra Kumar, are the common persons, holding more than requisite amount of share holding, and are having requisite interest, in the firm, but then, thereby the deemed dividend would not be deemed dividend in the hands of the firm, rather it would obviously be deemed dividend in the hands of the individuals, on whose behalf, 16. or on whose individual benefit, being such shareholder, the amount is paid by the company to the concern.‖ Notwithstanding the aforesaid judgments of Bombay High Court and Rajasthan High Courts, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue made a frantic effort to persuade us to take a contrary view. Ms. P.L. Bansal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue, leading from the front, made a fervent plea that some of the significant aspects were not noticed and discussed by the two High Courts in the aforesaid judgments which could have altered the course of action. She, thus, started her comments on first principle and citing various provisions of the Act as well as the deeming fiction which the concerned provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act had created, her endeavour was to demonstrate that by this deeming provision fictionally the concern which receives such payment would be treated shareholder for the purposes of this provision and such a payment in the form of advance or loan has to be treated as dividend in the hands of a recipient, i.e., a kind of concern stipulated in the second category and logically, it is this concern (which is the assessee in the instant case) who should be taxed for such dividend income. The genesis of her submission runs as follows: Normally, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act would distribute the income/profits to its shareholders by declaring dividend. Therefore, dividends represent the profits earned by a company which are given to the shareholders who are treated as owners of the company to the extent of their shareholding. However, in those companies where public does not have major stake and are closely held companies, there can always be an apprehension that the profits are given away to the shareholders, who have controlling/substantial interest, in the form of loans and advances so that those very profits are not transmitted to the shareholders in the form of dividends resulting into evading of tax advance of recipients, viz., the shareholders who would have otherwise received that very amount as dividends. It was pointed out that under Section 8 of the Act, dividend income of the interest specified therein is to be included in the total income of the assessee. Section 14 of the Act stipulates various heads of income, one of them being ―Income from Other Sources‖. As per Section 56 of the Act, dividend income is to be included under this head, viz., ―Income from Other Sources‖. Thus, the amount of dividend received by the shareholders is to be treated as income which is to be taxed under head ―Income from Other Sources‖. She referred to the Supreme Court judgment in thecase of Kantilal Manilal and Ors. v. The Commissioner of Income-Tax 41 ITR 275 where the nature of this kind of income is explained in the following manner: ―…………….Dividend‖ is defined in section 2(6A) as inclusive of various items and exclusive of certain others which it is not necessary to set out for the purpose of this appeal. ―Dividend‖ in its ordinary meaning is a distributive share of the profits or income of a company given to its shareholders. When the Legislature by section 2(6A) sought to define the expression ―dividend‖ it added to the normal meaning of the expression several other categories of receipts which may not otherwise be included therein. By the definition in section 2(6A), ―dividend‖ means dividend as normally understood and includes in its connotation several other receipts set out in the definition……………‖ 17.She, thus, argued that in order to ensure that the income which is normally to be distributed as dividend by the company is not frittered away in the form of advance and loans to the same very shareholders escaping the clutches of tax, provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act were enacted. By this provision, a fiction is created and certain receipts which would not be dividend in common parlance are qualified and treated as dividend for the purpose of exigible to taxation under this Act. Her submission was that when this legal fiction is created in respect of dividend income, it was to be taken to its logical conclusion. Thus, any concern which had received the amount should be taxed, was the submission. Ms. Bansal bolstered her submission by referring to Section 4 of the Act which is a charging section and stipulates that the tax is to be paid at the rates specified in respect of ‗the total income of the previous year of every person‘. From this, she argued that it is the income in the hands of the person which was liable to be taxed, which would mean that the recipien