“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

Vinita Pawankumar Saraf, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1982/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Krupa Jimit Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 2Section 2(22)(c)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

otherwise) made after the 31st day of May, 1987, 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

Himgiri Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 11(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 7080/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarhimgiri Realtors Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 11 (3), Flat No.818, 8Th Floor, New Delhi. Devika Tower 6, Nehru Place, New Deli – 110 019. (Pan : Aabch6093E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri I.P. Bansal, Advocate Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 Date Of Order : 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-35, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 28.08.2018 For Assessment Year 2012-13 Raising Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Impugned Appeal Order Is Bad In Law, Illegal & In Violation Of Rudimentary Principal Of Contemporary Jurisprudence.

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

Bench decision in the case of Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. was relied upon, held that the expression ‘shareholder being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares’ referred to in the first limb of section 2(22)(e) which refers to registered shareholder and beneficial shareholder. Further he brought ... otherwise) made after the 31st day of May, 1987, 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

Silverplass Holdings Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7396/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT- DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92A(2)(b)

rate as per the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement entered into and subsisting between India and Cyprus ('DTAA') by considering the assessee as not the beneficial owner and a mere conduit company 2:1 The Ld. AO has, vide draft assessment order dated 26 December 2017 passed under section 144C ... 115A (1)(a)(ii) of the Act. 2:2 The Ld. AO erred in rejecting the assessee's contention that the assessee is the beneficial owner of interest income. The Ld. AO failed to consider the assessee's contention that it holds the valid TRC issued by tax authorities

Thermodyne Dynamics Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -17(3), Hyderabad

ITA 500/HYD/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri Pawan KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna -CIT-

Section 11USection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 56

company was initially Rs.30 crores which was divided into three crore equity shares of Rs.10/- each with the promoters and their associates being the beneficial owners. The Ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid company for revitalization and improvement of its business, and also to finance its working capital and long

ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Satyanarayana Reddy Manne, Hydreabad

ITA 472/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

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

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251(1)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A" BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G

Satyanarayana Reddy Manne, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 382/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA M.V. Prasad and Shri K.S. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251(1)(a)

interested, of any sum by way of advance or loan to 46 ITA.Nos.382 & 472/Hyd./2025 a shareholder, being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares holding not less than 10% of the voting power, or to any Concern in which such shareholder is member or partner

Gandhinagar Arogya Nilayam Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2705/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.2705/Chny/2024 Assessment Year: - Gandhinagar Arogya Nilayam Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Charitable Trust, (Exemption), New No.56, Old No.62, Chennai. 4Th Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai- 600 020. [Pan:Aaatg2771L] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. V.Swaminathan, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025

For Appellant: Mr. V.Swaminathan, C.AFor Respondent: Mr.R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 11(4)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ’सी’ न्यायपीठ चेन्नई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार

Mr. 3 Sigma Global Fund, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the gain arising from the transfer of Derivatives cannot be taxed in India and the addition made in this regard stands deleted. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is hereb...

ITA 1130/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Bhaumik Goda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

applying the beneficial ownership principle, the Assessing Officer has not examined the eligibility of the claims of the Applicant in the hands of the beneficial owners, as per relevant Tax Treaties. Such an application of the beneficial ownership concept, and without enquiry into the substance of the Applicant Company ... Panel has no alternative but to reject the simplistic approach of the Assessing Officer, adopted sans enquiry, and by merely using the Ultimate Beneficial Owner data (UBO data under Rule 9 of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005, and as specified in Table

Ashish Garg, Noida vs. ACIT Central Circle -2, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 1726/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1725 & 1726/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Ashish Garg Acit B-16, Sector-2, Noida, Vs. Central Circle-2, Uttar Pradesh. Third Floor, Room No.363, Pan No.Aejpg9666H Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153DSection 68

ITA Nos.1725 & 1726/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL

Ashish Garg, Noida vs. ACIT Central Circle -2, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 1725/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Section 153DSection 68

ITA Nos.1725 & 1726/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL

Essar Communications Limited, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle-1 (2)(2), New Delhi

ITA 340/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG

Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

without prejudice argument of the Appellant that if it is alleged that Essar Communications (Mauritius) Ltd (ECML') was the decision maker and the beneficial owner of the VEL shares, the consequence would be that the capital gains on sale of VEL shares would belong to ECML and further erred ... ownership in its own name as a mere name lender and without any knowledge, authority and decision- making owned in its name by the beneficial owners based in India;  ECOM/ECL are nothing but shell companies which have been used as a conduit with the sole objective of avoidance

Essar Com Limited, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(2), New Delhi

ITA 339/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG

Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

without prejudice argument of the Appellant that if it is alleged that Essar Communications (Mauritius) Ltd (ECML') was the decision maker and the beneficial owner of the VEL shares, the consequence would be that the capital gains on sale of VEL shares would belong to ECML and further erred ... decision- making 44 ITA Nos.339 & 340/Del/2022 power into what was being done for the use of the shares owned in its name by the beneficial owners based in India; ECOM/ECL are nothing but shell companies which have been used as a conduit with the sole objective of avoidance

Shri Dilip J. Thakkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on merits

ITA 6268/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Shri Dilip J. Thakkar Dcit, Central Circle-6(4), 111A Currimji Building, Vs Kautilya Bhawan, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai – 400023. East, [Pan No. Aacpt9000H] Mumbai – 400051. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 153ASection 254(1)

managing the affairs of the trust or his name is mentioned as trustee cannot be per se held to be the legal or beneficial owner of the bank account or beneficiary of the trust fund. Now whether the amount deposited in the impugned foreign bank account is liable ... funds belong to the assessee when nothing has been found that the source of the funds has been routed through assessee or assessee was beneficial owner of the fund. We have already discussed the source of funds in the trust and who all were the ultimate beneficiaries of the fund

Intertek India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4660/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT- DR

Section 115Section 237

State (say India) to a resident of the other Contracting State (say France) may be taxed in that other State (France). However, if the beneficial owner of the dividend is a resident in France, the tax so charged shall not exceed specified percent. The first condition is that ... State, say India to a resident of the other Contracting State (say France) may be taxed in that other State (France). However, if the beneficial owner of the Dividend is a resident in France, the tax so charged shall not exceed specified percent. The first condition is that

Indu Bala Porwal, Udaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, ground no 5, 9 and 11 appeal is also allowed in favor as indicated above

ITA 173/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 250

Panth" belongs to the appellant is clearly rebutted from documentary evidences placed on record. 15. The BWR Trust (“Family trust”) is the real and beneficial owner of the funds and has claimed its ownership through their official documents where the same has been duly reflected, thus there arises no dispute

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan Extn vs. Spicejet Limited, New Delhi

In the results, both the appeals of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4597/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 10Section 250Section 40

that other State. 2. Contracting State in which they arise, and according to the laws of that State, but if the recipient is the beneficial owner of the royalties or fees for technical services, the tax so charged shall exceed 10 per cent of the gross amount of the royalties ... services mentioned in Articles 14 and 15 of this Convention.” 4. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply if the beneficial owner of the royalties or fees for technical services, being a resident of a Contracting State, carries on business in other Contracting State in which

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan Extn vs. Spicejet Limited, Gurgaon

In the results, both the appeals of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4595/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 10Section 250Section 40

Timken India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jamshedpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 92/RAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri K.M.Gupta/Krishan Shaw, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 234D

State, say India to a resident of the other Contracting State (say France) may be taxed in that other State (France). However, if the beneficial owner of the Dividend is a resident in France, the tax so charged shall not exceed specified percent. The first condition is that

Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Pjsc, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation)-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3404/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Pjsc Dcit (International Taxation)- Wework India Management Private 1(1)(1) 5Th Floor, Room No. 517, Limited Vs. 2Nd Floor, Express Towers, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Ranath Goenka Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaaca 4216 B (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Adv. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali

Section 143(3)

claimed that the interest income so earned would fall within the ambit of Article 11(2) of DTAA. Hence, the assessee, being the beneficial owner of such interest income, would be subject to tax on gross basis at a concessional rate of 5%. Undoubtedly, in the return of income ... taxed in the 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: (a) 5 per cent of the gross amount of the interest if such interest

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. M/S. Aakar Hotels, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 47/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon'Ble & Shri K.M. Roy, Hon'Ble Accountant, Member

Section 147Section 148

delete addition of Rs. 2,67,14,897/- as Long Term Capital Gains." 10. It is clear that the partners are the legal and beneficial owners of the lease hold land and the assignment was made only in their personal capacity. Since the lease hold right belongs to the partners