VittSphere ONE Calculators Blog CA Prabhakar Kumar · FCA · ICAI 560762
Case lawCBDT Circulars & Instructions › Statutory position — s.115BBDA: the ten per cent charge on a resident shareholder receiving dividend above ten lakh rupees, and why it sat on top of DDT rather than instead of it
CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysSuperseded by amendments.115BBDAs.115BBDA(1)s.115BBDA(2)s.2(22)s.2(22)(e)s.10(23C)s.12As.12AAs.12ABs.115-O

Statutory position — s.115BBDA: the ten per cent charge on a resident shareholder receiving dividend above ten lakh rupees, and why it sat on top of DDT rather than instead of it

My client got a notice charging ten per cent on his dividend income under s.115BBDA even though the companies had already paid DDT. Is that double taxation, and for which years does it apply?

My client got a notice charging ten per cent on his dividend income under s.115BBDA even though the companies had already paid DDT. Is that double taxation, and for which years does it apply?

Section 115BBDA charges a specified assessee resident in India, whose total income includes dividend in aggregate exceeding ten lakh rupees declared, distributed or paid by a domestic company or companies on or before 31 March 2020, to income-tax at ten per cent on the amount of such dividend in aggregate exceeding ten lakh rupees, plus the tax on the rest of his income computed as if the dividend were excluded. Sub-section (2) bars any deduction for expenditure or allowance and any set off of loss in computing that dividend income, and the Explanation excludes a s.2(22)(e) deemed dividend and takes a domestic company, a s.10(23C)(iv)/(v)/(vi)/(via) fund, institution, trust, university or hospital, and a trust or institution registered under s.12A, s.12AA or s.12AB out of 'specified assessee'.

Decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text) on 2020-04-01, reported as Income-tax Act, 1961, s.115BBDA, as printed on the departmental page stamped Year: 2026, compared against the page stamped Year: 2019 (No. 1). It bears on section 115BBDA, section 115BBDA(1), section 115BBDA(2), section 2(22), section 2(22)(e), section 10(23C), section 12A, section 12AA, section 12AB, section 115-O of the Income Tax Act 1961, in How Tax Law Is Read and Assessment & Scrutiny matters.

Superseded by amendment. The section charges nothing on dividend declared, distributed or paid after 31 March 2020; from then dividend is taxed in the shareholder's hands under the ordinary provisions. It remains the operative law for the years in which it ran, which are inside this library's scope. The precise assessment years of its life were NOT verified this pass: the section's own words fix the end at 31 March 2020, but the start date and the assessment years were not established from any source, and the Finance Act 2016 text was not retrieved. No case law under s.115BBDA was searched for.

Why it matters

It is not double taxation in any sense that gives a defence, and it is important to say so plainly: s.115-O charges the distributing company and s.115BBDA charges the receiving shareholder, and s.115BBDA opens with 'Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act' and contains no credit for the DDT the company has paid. For a year in which both operated, both operated — the shareholder's ten per cent was in addition to, not instead of, the company's DDT. The only relief the section gives is the ten lakh rupee floor, and the charge is only on the excess: clause (a) of sub-section (1) taxes 'the income by way of such dividends in aggregate exceeding ten lakh rupees'. Three traps. First, aggregation: the threshold is on dividend 'in aggregate' from 'a domestic company or companies', so a shareholder with eight lakh rupees from each of two companies is over the line. Second, sub-section (2) is absolute — no expenditure, no allowance, no set off of loss against the dividend taxed under clause (a); the interest a shareholder paid on money borrowed to buy the shares gets him nothing here. Third, the Explanation's carve-outs are exhaustive: a domestic company is outside the charge, and so is a registered trust or a s.10(23C) institution, but a partnership firm, an LLP, an AOP or a non-resident-turned-resident individual is a specified assessee. The section has no sub-section (3). Both the Year 2019 and the Year 2026 departmental texts stop at sub-section (2) and the Explanation, so a citation to 's.115BBDA(3)' is a citation to nothing. On the years: the charge is confined by its own words to dividend declared, distributed or paid on or before 31 March 2020, and the earliest departmental version of the section carries the year stamp 2016. That is consistent with the section having been inserted by the Finance Act 2016 and having run from AY 2017-18 to AY 2020-21, which is what the brief for this build states, but the assessment years are NOT something I could establish from the statutory text or from any departmental footnote, and the entry does not certify them.

Binding on the department, not on the assessee or the courts. An assessee may rely on a circular that is beneficial to them.

Not yet CA-verified. This entry was found through the sources listed under the Sources tab, and the summary reflects what those sources say. Nobody has yet read the full judgment and signed it off. Check the source before relying on it.

Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.

Related

Other authorities on the same sections.