VittSphere ONE Calculators Blog CA Prabhakar Kumar · FCA · ICAI 560762
Case lawCirculars2017 › Circular No. 19/2017
CBDT circular 12 June 2017

Circular No. 19/2017

Settled view on section 2 22 e of the income tax act trade advances

What this is

Circular No. 19/2017 was issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on 12 June 2017. Its subject is Settled view on section 2 22 e of the income tax act trade advances.

What it does

Accepts that trade advances in the nature of commercial transactions are not an 'advance' within section 2(22)(e), so they are not deemed dividend. The Board records that courts have so held and that those views have attained finality, and gives three illustrations from the judgments it cites: an advance to a sister concern adjusted against dues for job work (CIT v. Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd., Delhi High Court); an advance to a shareholder to install plant and machinery at his premises so he could do job work enabling the company to meet an export order (CIT v. Amrik Singh, Punjab and Haryana High Court); and a floating security deposit given to a sister concern against use of its electricity generators (CIT, Agra v. Atul Engineering Udyog, Allahabad High Court). Officers are directed not to file appeals on this ground, and to withdraw or not press those already filed before courts and Tribunals.

Why it was issued

The Board observed that recent decisions holding trade advances outside section 2(22)(e) had attained finality, and issued the circular to settle the departmental position.

Who it reaches

The provisions it speaks to

Left, the provision of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as the instrument itself names it. Right, the section of the Income-tax Act, 2025 that the department’s own concordance maps it to — which is where the same ground is now covered.
Under the 1961 ActNow
s.2s.2, s.346, s.355

The instrument, as the Board published it

The department publishes this one only as a PDF, so the words below were read out of that PDF by machine. That reading can carry its own mistakes — a misread number, a broken line. Check the signed document before you rely on a figure in it.

F.No.279IMisc.l140/2015I1TJ
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Central Board of Direct Taxes
Circular No. 19/2017
New Delhi, Dated 12th June, 2017
Sub: Settled View on section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, trade advances -reg.

Section 2(22) clause (e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) provides that "dividend" includes any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum 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.

2. The Board has observed that some Courts in the recent past have held that trade advances in the nature of commercial transactions would not fall within the ambit of the provisions of section 2(22) (e) of the Act. Such views have attained finality.

2.1 Some illustrations/examples of trade advances/commercial transactions held to be not covered under section 2(22) (e) of the Act are as follows:

i. Advances were made by a company to a sister concern and adjusted against the dues for job work done by the sister concern. It was held that amounts advanced for business transactions do not to fall within the definition of deemed dividend under section 2(22) (e) of the Act. (CIT vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd. l , Delhi High Court).

ii. Advance was made by a company to its shareholder to install plant and machinery at the shareholder's premises to enable him to do job work for the company so that the company could fulfil an export order. It was held that as the assessee proved business expediency, the advance was not covered by section 2(22)(e) of the Act. (CIT vs Amrik Singh, P&H High Courtl

iii. A floating security deposit was given by a company to its sister concern against the use of electricity generators belonging to the sister concern. The company utilised gas available to it from GAIL to generate electricity and supplied it to the sister concern at concessional rates. It was held that the security deposit made by the

1 [NJRS] 2009-LL-0922-2, ITA No. 2500[2009
2 [NJRS] 2015-LL-0429-5, ITA No. 3470[2013

company to its sister concern was a business transaction arising in the normal course of business between two concerns and the transaction did not attract section 2(22) (e) ofthe Act. ( CIT, Agra vs Atul Engineering Udyog, Allahabad High Court)3

3. In view of the above it is, a settled position that trade advances, which are in the nature of commercial transactions would not fall within the ambit of the word 'advance' in section 2(22)( e) of the Act. Accordingly, henceforth, appeals may not be filed on this ground by Officers of the Department and those already filed, in Courtsrrribunals may be withdrawn/not pressed upon.

4. The above may be brought to the notice of all concerned.

5. Hindi version follows.

(Neetika
~~ Bansal) 1;1..\ 06l ) 7
Deputy Secretary to Government of India

Copy to:-
1. The Chairperson, Members and officers of the CBDT of the rank of Under Secretary and above.
2. OSD to Revenue Secretary.
3. All Pro Chief Commissioners ofIncome-Tax & All Directors General ofIncome-Tax with a request to bring to the attention of all officers.
4. The Comptroller and Auditor General ofIndia.
5. The Pro Director General ofIncome-Tax, NADT, Nagpur.
6. The Pro DGIT (Systems), ARA Centre, lhandewalan Extension, New Delhi.
7. The Pro DGIT (Vigilance), New Delhi.
8. The ADG (PR. PP & OL) for circulation as per usual mailing list.
9. ADG-4 (Systems) for uploading on lTD website.
10. Database Cell for uploading on irsofficersonline.
11. njrs_support@nsdl.co.in for uploading on NJRS.
12. Hindi section for translation in Hindi
13. Guard File

3 [NJRS] 2014-LL-0926-121, ITA No. 223 0[2011

What to watch

Where you meet it

You meet it in an addition as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) on running account or advance balances between group concerns, and in asking the department to withdraw or not press such a ground in an appeal.

An example

Ours, not the Board’s: a worked case built from the rule the instrument sets, to show how it falls out.

A closely held company advances funds to a sister concern in which its major shareholder has a substantial interest, and the amount is later adjusted against job work charges billed by that sister concern. On the reasoning the circular adopts, the advance is a commercial transaction and not an advance within section 2(22)(e), so no deemed dividend arises in the shareholder's hands.

What it names

It mentions. Circular No. 19/2017

On the same provision

Other instruments in this library that name the same provision of the 1961 Act. They are not necessarily still operative, and a later one may have replaced an earlier one without saying so.

← Circular No. 22/2017  ·  Circular No. 20/2017 →

A circular binds the department, not you and not a court. The Board issues a circular to its own officers. An assessee may hold the department to a circular that helps him; the department cannot hold an assessee to one that hurts him, and the Tribunal and the courts decide the law for themselves.

Source: the Income Tax Department’s own published text — its page for this instrument.

What it means in practice. This page is the instrument. For the question it answers, what the Board decided and what to do about it, see CBDT Circular 19/2017 — trade advances and deemed dividend, s.2(22)(e).