“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

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

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

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

M/S Grob-Werke Gmbh & Co. Kg, Germany vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Intl Txn Circle, Vizag, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 176/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.176/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2022-23) Vs. M/S. Grob – Werke Gmbh & Co. Kg Acit Industriestrasse 4, 87719 Mindelheim International Taxation Circle Income Tax Office Germany, Pincode - 87719 Infinity Towers Sankaramatam Road [Pan:Aaifg4270G] Visakhapatnam - 530016 करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Nikhil Ajit Mutha, Ca : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr) राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2025

Section 115ASection 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195

basis of the evidence in the form of certificate dated 25/7/2003 from revenue authorities in Netherlands certifying that the respondent assessee was a beneficial owner of the royalty received in respect of musical track given to M/s. Universal Music Pvt. Ltd. Besides, reliance was placed by the Tribunal upon ... anything on record to controvert the finding of fact arrived at by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that the respondent assessee is the beneficial owner of the royalty received on the musical tracks given to Universal Music Private Limited. In view of the above, the decision of the Tribunal

Ritesh Aggarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO - 16(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statisti...

ITA 200/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Ito-16(3)(3), D 704, Imperial Heights Best Colony Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Road, Goregaon West, Opp. Vs. Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Goregaon Fire Bridge, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400104. Pan No. Aadpa 6828 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Nishit Gandhi

Section 143(3)Section 147

argued that In relation to the Knox Plaza property, it was argued that been received by the assessee’s wife, who was the beneficial owner been received by the assessee’s wife, who was the beneficial owner been received by the assessee’s wife, who was the beneficial owner

Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Anna Salai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1141/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1141/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.9 Ninth Floor, Club House Road, Tax, Anna Salai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai- 600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aagca5275J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri P.R.Prasanna Varma, F.C.A & Mr.Arjun Rajagopalan, C.A, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Prasanna Varma, F.C.A &For Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 115BSection 69A

doubt that once the seller, i.e. the appellant sold the receivables to the assignee i.e. the issuers/SPVs (above 5 securitization) they are legal and beneficial owner of the said receivables and the appellant right stands extinguished once the sales is over and accordingly, the appellant claim of sold securitized assets

The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara vs. Pawan Edifice Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara

Appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 529/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 68Section 80G

account of claim of depreciation observing that the cars were purchased by the Company by arranging loan from Bank and the beneficial owner of the cars is the company despite the fact that the cars in question were registered in the name of the directors of the assessee Company ... reflected as assets in the company's balance sheet and the loan liabilities were also recorded therein. The assessee contended that it was the beneficial owner of the vehicles, having domain and control over them, and they were used wholly and exclusively for its business purposes. Reliance was placed

Pawan Edifice Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

Appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 478/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 68Section 80G

account of claim of depreciation observing that the cars were purchased by the Company by arranging loan from Bank and the beneficial owner of the cars is the company despite the fact that the cars in question were registered in the name of the directors of the assessee Company ... reflected as assets in the company’s balance sheet and the loan liabilities were also recorded therein. The assessee contended that it was the beneficial owner of the vehicles, having domain and control over them, and they were used wholly and exclusively for its business purposes. Reliance was placed

Pawan Edifice Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

ITA 477/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 68Section 80G

Rotary Shaishnik Tabibi Seva Sahayak Mandal, Valsad vs. CIT(Exmeption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 396/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 396/Srt/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (Na) (Hybrid Hearing) Rotary Shaishnik Tabibi Seav Vs. Cit(Exemption) Sahayak Mandal Room No. 609, Floor No. 6, Ayakar Vai – Bhilad, At Post Sarigam Bhavan (Vejalpur), Prahalad Nagar, Road, Ahmedabad - 380015 Valsad – 396170 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahts6053N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Ld.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi kant Gupta, Ld.CIT(DR)

Section 12ASection 2(15)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Harmander Singh Sran, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC- 29, New Delhi

ITA 4018/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 10(34)Section 115Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

sought the reasons recoded and filed detailed objections which were disposed off by the AO and finally, by holding that the assessee is the beneficial owner of the amount received by M/s. HBN Homes Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. as loan from M/s HBN Dairies & Allied Ltd. upto

ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Msn Organics Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 395/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

advance or loan to a shareholder, being a person 20 MSN Organics Private Limited 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 ... which the public are substantially interested, of any sum by way of advances or loan to a shareholder, being a person, who is beneficial owner of shares, (not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend, whether with or without right to participate in the profits), holding not less

Mahendra Patel Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara

ITA 1217/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.61 To 65/Ahd/2025 Asstt.Year : 2015-16 To 2019-20 And

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, AR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद न्यायपीठ 'C' अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI SANJAY GARG

Prakashbhai Dhirubhai Thakkar, Rajkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Rajkot

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 222/RJT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.222/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

F.Y.2006-07, the advance of Rs.1,15,000/-, which was received by the assessee, from M/s Parth Laboratories Pvt Ltd, in which he was a beneficial owner of shares holding 10.76% shares of the company, was added back to the income of the assessee for the assessment year

Mrs Poonam Patni, Pune vs. ITO(It), Ward-3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1193/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1193/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Mrs. Poonam Patni, V The Income Tax Officer, S.No.1A, F-1, Irani Market S. (It) Ward-3, Pune. Compound, Yerwada, Pune – 411006. Maharashtra. Pan: Aarpp6155A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri C H Naniwadekar – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-3, Chennai Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.03.2025 For A.Y.2022-23, Emanating From The Order U/S.143(1) Of The Act, Dated 26.10.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(1)Section 250

interest may also be taxed in the Contracting State in which it arises, and according to the laws of that State, but if the beneficial owner of the interest is a resident of the other Contracting State, the tax so charged shall not exceed: (a) 10 percent of the gross ... Contracting State of which the company paying the dividends is a resident, and according to the laws of that State, but if the beneficial owner of the dividends is a resident of the other Contracting State, the tax so charged shall not exceed: (a) 15 per cent of the gross

Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 7341/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

also be taxed in Contracting State in which it arises and according to the laws of that State, but if the recipient is the beneficial owner of the interest the tax so charged shall not exceed 10 per cent of the gross amount of the interest." 17. Thus, the treaty

Mayankkumar Rameshchandra Bhatt, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1284/AHD/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2007-08 Mayankkumar Rameschandra Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) Bhatt Vs. Vadodara. B/202, Laljikrupa Society B/H. Mothers School Gotri Road, Baroda. Pan : Agypb 2066 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29 /07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.05.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2007–08, Arising Out Of The Reassessment Order Dated 27.03.2015 Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2)(4), Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”].

For Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘SMC’ अहमदाबाद

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai vs. Choice Equity Broking Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1012/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 148oSection 250Section 68

acted as a mediator between the buyer and seller of the shares through the stock exchange and it was not at all the beneficial owner of the amount received in the clients imprest / pool account. 6. We have heard the Counsels of both the parties and perused the material placed ... that assessee being a broker was only a mediator between the buyer and seller of shares through stock exchange and it was not a beneficial owner of the amount received in the client’s imprest / pool account. In fact the sum of Rs.79.83 Crores were received by the assessee from

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai vs. Choice Equity Broking Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5687/MUM/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 148oSection 250Section 68

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, 6(4), Mumbai vs. Choice Equity Broking Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5686/MUM/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 148oSection 250Section 68

Sukumar Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi vs. National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5401/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwals.A.No.524/Del/2024 [In Ita No.5401/Del/2024] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Sukumar Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., Vs National Faceless C-30, Panchsheel Enclave, Appeals Centre South Delhi, (Nfac), Delhi Delhi-110017. Pan-Aaqcs8755B Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Sukumar Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., Vs National Faceless C-30, Panchsheel Enclave, Appeals Centre South Delhi, (Nfac), Delhi Delhi-110017. Pan-Aaqcs8755B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gagan Kumar, Adv. & Shri Gagan Deep, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2025 Order

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

such investment was owned by M/s Rockland Hospital Ltd. as made by it and it is the beneficial owner thus the AO concluded that the amount received by the assessee from the sale of shares was undisclosed credit of the assessee and made the additions for the same by invoking ... assessee, the Department alleged that amount invested by the assessee company were actually made by Rockland Hospital Limited who is the actual beneficial owner of these shares and therefore, in AY 2014-15 such investments was held as unexplained. Finally, Rockland Hospital Pvt. Ltd. had accepted such investments and further

ITO-19.3.1, Mumbai vs. Sheela Madhav Apte, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3079/MUM/2024[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Rungta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT, D/R

Section 2(11)Section 3(1)

undisclosed Foreign Asset as per the Black Money/UFIA) and imposition of Tax Act, 2015, without considering the facts that the assessee was a economic beneficial owner and ultimate beneficial owner of the Shares in St. Ives International Ltd, which was the undisclosed foreign asset within the meaning of section ... from AY 2012-13 to till date. This is the allegation of the revenue. It was also alleged that the assessee is 100% beneficial owner as a shareholder of 1000 shares of St. Ives International Limited, Guernsey, each share of value 1.00 GBP, through two nominees i.e., Trident Nominees

Bibekananda Goswami, Purulia vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(2), Purulia

ITA 2214/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Where The Assessee Could Not Succeed On The Basis Of Following Finding:

Section 115BSection 148Section 250Section 69A

bank statement of 3 Bibekananda Goswami account (placed in the paper book). It is clearly mentioned that the assessee is not the beneficial owner of the said account. It was explained that all the transactions in the said bank account belong to the Balarampur Thana Society ... said Balarampur Thana Society and hence considering that the assessee’s PAN was used, it deserved to be presumed that he was the beneficial owner of the impugned transactions. 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the records before us. From a perusal