← All Phrases

“beneficial owner”

International TaxDTAADTAA951 judgments

The decision most relied on for beneficial owner is Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT (5 SCC 482), cited in 261 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on beneficial owner

Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT
5 SCC 482 · 1997 · Supreme Court
261
citing judgments

For income to be assessable under the head 'Income from House Property' as per Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, beneficial ownership or the right to enjoy the property is sufficient; legal ownership is not a mandatory prerequisite.

Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT
239 ITR 775 · 1999 · Supreme Court
215
citing judgments

For income tax purposes, the 'owner' of a property is the person who is entitled to receive income in their own right, bears the risks incidental to ownership, and utilizes the asset, even if the sale deed is not formally registered. This beneficial ownership is sufficient for claiming depreciation or capital gains exemption under relevant sections.

CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd.
340 ITR 14 · 2012 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) cannot be taxed in the hands of a non-shareholder. The Supreme Court confirmed this view, affirming the Delhi High Court's decision in Ankitech.

PCIT v. Ambe Tradecorp Pvt. Ltd.
145 Taxmann.com 27 · 2022 · High Court
169
citing judgments

No addition under section 68 can be made for a loan if the assessee furnishes material proving the identity of the loan givers, demonstrates they are not the beneficial owner, and has repaid the loan in a subsequent year.

CIT v. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd.
324 ITR 263 · 2010 · High Court
111
citing judgments

Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) is assessable only in the hands of the beneficial shareholder who receives the benefit of the loan or advance, and not in the hands of the company receiving the loan.

Miss P. Sarada v. CIT
229 ITR 444 · 1998 · Supreme Court
64
citing judgments

A loan or advance from a closely held company to a shareholder is a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) upon receipt, unaffected by subsequent repayment or adjustment.

(Refer: CIT v. C.P.Sarathy Mudaliar
83 ITR 170 · 1972 · Supreme Court
63
citing judgments

For the purpose of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, the term 'shareholder' refers exclusively to a registered shareholder of the company, and not a beneficial owner or non-shareholder.

CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora
342 ITR 38 · 2012 · High Court
51
citing judgments

Deduction under Section 54F cannot be restricted or denied merely because the new residential property, for which the entire consideration is paid by the assessee, is purchased in the joint names of the assessee and their spouse. The assessee is considered the actual and constructive owner of the property.

Judgments citing beneficial owner

Shri Ram Krupa Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 315/AHD/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2021-22

Section 154Section 154(3)Section 195Section 200ASection 90Section 90(4)

provisions of Article 10 of DTAA between India and Mauritius, which clearly provide for TDS on dividend income at a concessional rate where the beneficial owner holds more than 10% of the capital of the company paying the dividend. . 6. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that your appellant

The Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ufj, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 7212/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 44C

provisions of Article- 11(6) which is reproduced below- "6. The provisions of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall not apply if the beneficial owner of the interest, being a resident of a Contracting State, carries on business in the other Contracting State in which the interest arises, through

Vikas Chawla, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 5625/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2022-23 Vikas Chawla, Vs Income Tax Officer, 582/2, 1St Floor, Gali Ward-47(1), D.S. Building, Ghanteshwar Katra Neel New Delhi-110001 Chandni Chowk, New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afnpc7260A

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 68

erred in law and facts in disallowing depreciation of Rs.12,48,730/- on Mercedes Benz, ignoring that:  The assessee was in possession and beneficial owner of the vehicle by virtue of General Power of Attorney and duly used for the purpose of the business.  Loan repayment and expenses were borne ... fund utilized for repayment of car loan was that of the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee was in possession and beneficial owner of the vehicle by virtue of general power of attorney and duly used for the purpose of business. It is further stated that the loan

ACIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. Nop Properties Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7648/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarassistant Commissioner Of V/S. Nop Properties Private Income Tax, Central Circle – बनाम Limited 7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Office No. Ii-B, Mezzanine Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Floor, 289 Emca House, Shahid Mumbai – 400 020, Bhagat Singh Road, Fort, Maharashtra Mumbai – 400 001, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcn1799B Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Properties Private Limited, Mumbai balance for the assessee related to this loan amount. The assessee is not the beneficial owner of the loan during the impugned assessment year. The assessee filed evidence during the assessment proceeding, which is acknowledged by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(2)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate vs. Mumbai International Airport Limited, Mumbai

ITA 7035/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MAKARAND V MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Mumbai International Airport Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6692/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokara.Y:2014-15 Mumbai International Vs. Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Airport Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – Chhatrpati Shivaji 400020. International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) A.Y:2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Vs. Mumbai International Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Airport Ltd., New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, 400020. Chhatrpati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabha Soparkar Virtually Appeared Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand V Mahadeokar, Am: These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Under Section 250 Of The Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 05.08.2025 In The Case Of The Assessee For Assessment Year 2014–15. The Assessment In The Present Case Was Originally Completed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2017. Since The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Arise Out Of The Same Appellate Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MAKARAND V MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT

B.V.Kapadia HUF, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2879/KOL/2025[201-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 199Section 250

Rule 37BA(2), TDS credit is to be given to the person in whose hands the related income is assessable. The appellant, being the beneficial owner of shares and recipient of dividend income, is legally entitled to TDS credit irrespective of deductor's reporting error. 6. The learned

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata vs. Avima Exports Private Limited, Kolkata

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1599/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Everwin Educational and Charitable Trust, Kolathur, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2811/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K. Kalakeri, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee's case that, the trustees held the property in their name in fiduciary capacity and that the assessee trust was all long the beneficial owner of the property. To demonstrate the same, the assessee has placed before us contemporaneous evidence comprising of the audited financials of the assessee trust

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Manisha Kamal Khetan, Mumbai

ITA 7891/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23(1)Section 24Section 250Section 68

further submitted that in her return of income she had duly disclosed her status in Schedule FA as a beneficiary and not as a beneficial owner. The bank accounts in question did not belong to her and the amounts therein did not represent her income. The Ld. CIT(A), upon ... deed and corporate documents (as submitted before the Assessing Officer - paper book page No.5), has held that the assessee was neither the owner nor beneficial owner of the funds appearing in the accounts of the said companies. Further, the learned AR referred to Schedule FA of the return of income

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Halliburton Worldwide Gmbh, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 250/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.250/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Halliburton Worldwide Gmbh 1St Floor, Ida, 46, E.C. Road, Aayakar Bhawan, 13-A, Subhash Road, Vs. Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Dehradun- 248001,Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aadch1061Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115ASection 250Section 9(1)(vi)

services may also be taxed in the Contracting State in which they arise and according to the laws of that State; but if the beneficial owner of the royalties or fees for technical services is a resident of the other Contracting State, the tax so charged shall not exceed

Diabetomics Medical Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee

ITA 2149/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

venture capital undertaking; and (iii) it has not invested in any venture capital undertaking in which its director or a substantial shareholder (being a beneficial owner of equity shares exceeding ten per cent of 47 ITA.Nos.2147, 2148 and 2149/Hyd./2025 its equity share capital) holds, either individually or collectively

Diabetomics Medical Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee

ITA 2148/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

venture capital undertaking; and (iii) it has not invested in any venture capital undertaking in which its director or a substantial shareholder (being a beneficial owner of equity shares exceeding ten per cent of 47 ITA.Nos.2147, 2148 and 2149/Hyd./2025 its equity share capital) holds, either individually or collectively

Diabetomics Medical Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee

ITA 2147/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

venture capital undertaking; and (iii) it has not invested in any venture capital undertaking in which its director or a substantial shareholder (being a beneficial owner of equity shares exceeding ten per cent of 47 ITA.Nos.2147, 2148 and 2149/Hyd./2025 its equity share capital) holds, either individually or collectively

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6211/MUM/2025[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

course of assessment proceedings, the AO, vide order u/s.147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2014 held that the appellant is the beneficial owner of the aforesaid foreign bank accounts maintained with HSBC Bank and estimated return over investment @17% annually, accordingly he earned US$510000 (Rs.33.45

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6209/MUM/2025[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

course of assessment proceedings, the AO, vide order u/s.147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2014 held that the appellant is the beneficial owner of the aforesaid foreign bank accounts maintained with HSBC Bank and estimated return over investment @17% annually, accordingly he earned US$510000 (Rs.33.45

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6195/MUM/2025[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

course of assessment proceedings, the AO, vide order u/s.147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2014 held that the appellant is the beneficial owner of the aforesaid foreign bank accounts maintained with HSBC Bank and estimated return over investment @17% annually, accordingly he earned US$510000 (Rs.33.45

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6194/MUM/2025[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

course of assessment proceedings, the AO, vide order u/s.147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2014 held that the appellant is the beneficial owner of the aforesaid foreign bank accounts maintained with HSBC Bank and estimated return over investment @17% annually, accordingly he earned US$510000 (Rs.33.45

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6193/MUM/2025[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

course of assessment proceedings, the AO, vide order u/s.147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2014 held that the appellant is the beneficial owner of the aforesaid foreign bank accounts maintained with HSBC Bank and estimated return over investment @17% annually, accordingly he earned US$510000 (Rs.33.45

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

ITA 6192/MUM/2025[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

course of assessment proceedings, the AO, vide order u/s.147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2014 held that the appellant is the beneficial owner of the aforesaid foreign bank accounts maintained with HSBC Bank and estimated return over investment @17% annually, accordingly he earned US$510000 (Rs.33.45