Madras High Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Deemed Dividend Case — Advances from Sister Concern for Software Development Held Not Deemed Dividend Under Section 2(22)(e) of Income-Tax Act, 1961. Business Transactions in Ordinary Course Excluded from Deemed Dividend Provisions.

High Court: Madras High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Revenue filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench dated 10.02.2011 in ITA 1016/Mds/2010 for assessment year 2006-07. The assessee, M/s. Ready Test Go Pvt. Ltd (now C.S.S. Corp. P.Ltd), had filed its return in time. During assessment, the assessing officer noted that the assessee had received a sum of Rs.8,32,31,520/- from its sister concern Cybernet Software Systems (CSS) and proposed to treat it as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). The assessee contended that it was not a shareholder in CSS and that the amounts were received in the course of business. The assessing officer overruled these submissions and passed an assessment order on 02.12.2008. On first appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted the assessee's argument that the amounts were paid in the ordinary course of business, relying on the Delhi High Court decisions in CIT v Ambassador Travels P Ltd and CIT v Vikramjit Sen and Rajiv Shakdher. The CIT(A) found that the advances were for software testing and development and were adjusted against bills raised by the assessee, thus constituting normal business transactions. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the CIT(A)'s order. The High Court admitted the appeal on two questions of law: whether the advance amounted to deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e), and whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the advances could not be treated as loan/advance under Section 2(22)(e) as they were made in the ordinary course of business. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the CIT(A) had recorded a specific finding of fact that the amounts were advanced towards software testing and development and adjusted against bills, which was not shown to be perverse. The court held that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal, confirming that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) do not apply to business transactions in the ordinary course.

Headnote

A) Income Tax - Deemed Dividend - Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 - Business Transaction Exclusion - The assessee received Rs.8,32,31,520/- from its sister concern for software testing and development, adjusted against bills raised. The court held that such advances made in the ordinary course of business do not fall within the ambit of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). The finding of fact by the CIT(A) that the payments were towards pure business/trading transactions was upheld. (Paras 2-5)

B) Income Tax - Deemed Dividend - Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 - Advance in Ordinary Course of Business - The Revenue argued that there is no exclusion for advances paid ahead of due time. However, the court, relying on CIT v Ambassador Travels P Ltd and CIT v Vikramjit Sen and Rajiv Shakdher, held that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) are not applicable to normal business transactions. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose. (Paras 4-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether advances received by the assessee from its sister concern in which directors were substantially interested amount to deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, and whether such advances can be excluded on the ground that they were made in the ordinary course of business.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arises. The finding of fact by the CIT(A) that the advances were for software testing and development and adjusted against bills, being in the ordinary course of business, was not perverse. The provisions of Section 2(22)(e) are not attracted.

Law Points

  • Deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-Tax Act
  • 1961 does not apply to advances made in the ordinary course of business
  • Advances from sister concern for software testing and development adjusted against bills are normal business transactions
  • No exclusion from Section 2(22)(e) for advances paid ahead of due date but business purpose overrides
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026:MHC:671

T.C.A.No.303 of 2011

2026-01-20

Dr. Anita Sumanth, Mummineni Sudheer Kumar

2026:MHC:671

Ms.Harshini for Mrs.V.Pushpa (Senior Standing Counsel) for Appellant, Mr.Vijaya Raghavan for M/s. Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan for Respondent

Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Chennai

M/s. Ready Test Go Pvt. Ltd (Now C.S.S. Corp. P.Ltd)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Tax appeal by Revenue against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding treatment of advances as deemed dividend.

Remedy Sought

Revenue sought to set aside the Tribunal's order and uphold the assessment treating the advance as deemed dividend.

Filing Reason

Revenue aggrieved by Tribunal's order holding that advance of Rs.8,32,31,520/- from sister concern was not deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e).

Previous Decisions

Assessing Officer passed assessment order on 02.12.2008 treating advance as deemed dividend; CIT(A) allowed assessee's appeal on 10.02.2011; Tribunal upheld CIT(A) order.

Issues

Whether the advance of Rs.8,32,31,520/- received by the assessee from its sister concern amounts to deemed dividend within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961? Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that such advances could not be treated as loan/advance under Section 2(22)(e) on the ground that they were made in the ordinary course of business?

Submissions/Arguments

Revenue argued that the advance falls within the ambit of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) and there is no exclusion for advances made in the ordinary course of business. Assessee contended that the amounts were received in the course of business and hence not deemed dividend, and that the assessee was not a shareholder in the sister concern.

Ratio Decidendi

Advances made in the ordinary course of business, such as payments for software testing and development adjusted against bills, do not constitute deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The provision is not intended to apply to normal business transactions.

Judgment Excerpts

the amounts in question had been advanced by CSS to the assessee towards software testing and development and had subsequently been adjusted against bills raised by the assessee. the payments were towards pure business / trading transactions, and the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act would not stand attracted.

Procedural History

Assessee filed return; Assessing Officer passed assessment order on 02.12.2008 treating advance as deemed dividend; CIT(A) allowed assessee's appeal on 10.02.2011; Revenue appealed to ITAT which upheld CIT(A) order; Revenue filed appeal under Section 260A before High Court on 17.08.2011; High Court dismissed appeal on 20.01.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Income-Tax Act, 1961: 2(22)(e), 260A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Deemed Dividend Case — Advances from Sister Concern for Software Development Held Not Deemed Dividend Under Section 2(22)(e) of Income-Tax Act, 1961. Business Transactions in Ordinary Course Excluded ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Invalidity of Scheduled Tribe Certificate — Relies on Prior Validity Granted to Paternal Uncle and Cousin Under Thakur Caste. The Court held that the Scrutiny Committee cannot ignore the binding ef...