“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

ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6079/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.5692 और5693/दिल्ली/2019 (नि.व. 2007-08 और2008-09)

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Deepesh Jain, Advocates andFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)

Section 195Section 40

acknowledge the fact that learned counsel for the assessee has filed elaborate documentation in support of their stand about tax residency status of beneficial owners of the interest paid by the assessee and has also addressed the arguments on merits, but, in the absence of this aspect of the matter ... second round of litigation before us is the taxability of interest in the light of factual findings on tax residency status of beneficial owner of the interest paid by the assessee and also the assessee's plea of ‘bonafide' in not deducting tax at source on interest payment

ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6078/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.5692 और5693/दिल्ली/2019 (नि.व. 2007-08 और2008-09)

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Deepesh Jain, Advocates andFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)

Section 195Section 40

have to acknowledge the fact that learned counsel for theassessee has filed elaborate documentation in support of their stand about taxresidency status of beneficial owners of the interest paid by the assessee andhas also addressed the arguments on merits, but, in the absence of this aspectof the matter having been ... second round of litigation before us is the taxability of interest in the light of factual findings on tax residency status of beneficial owner of the interest paid by the assessee and also the assessee's plea of ‘bonafide' in not deducting tax at source on interest payment

Bharti Airtel Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5963/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.5692 और5693/िद"ी /2019(िन.व. 2007-08 और2008-09)

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Deepesh Jain, Advocates and Shri Shivam Gupta, Chartered AccoFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)

Section 195Section 40

have to acknowledge the fact that learned counsel for theassessee has filed elaborate documentation in support of their stand about taxresidency status of beneficial owners of the interest paid by the assessee andhas also addressed the arguments on merits, but, in the absence of this aspectof the matter having been ... second round of litigation before us is the taxability of interest in the light of factual findings on tax residency status of beneficial owner of the interest paid by the assessee and also the assessee’s plea of ‘bonafide’ in not deducting tax at source on interest payment

Bharti Airtel Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5962/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.5692 और5693/दिल्ली/2019 (नि.व. 2007-08 और2008-09)

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Deepesh Jain, Advocates andFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)

Section 195Section 40

acknowledge the fact that learned counsel for the assessee has filed elaborate documentation in support of their stand about tax residency status of beneficial owners of the interest paid by the assessee and has also addressed the arguments on merit, but in the absence of this aspect of the matter ... second round of litigation before us is the taxability of interest in the light of factual findings on tax residency status of beneficial owner of the interest paid by the assessee and also the assessee's plea of ‘bonafide' in not deducting tax at source on interest payment

Arvindbhai Punabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1998/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

entire amount should not be treated as income in the hands of the assessee. The AR contended that the assessee was not the beneficial owner of the funds deposited and was merely facilitating transactions on behalf of third parties. Accordingly, the only income element embedded in such deposits

Aravali Buildhomes LLP, Jaipur vs. AO CPC, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1154/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 80Section 80ASection 80I

required to furnish a return under this sub-section and who at any time during the previous year,— (a) holds, as a beneficial owner or otherwise, any asset (including any financial interest in any entity) located outside India or has signing authority in any account located outside India ... pilgrimage as the Board may specify in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette. Explanation 4.—For the purposes of this section "beneficial owner" in respect of an asset means an individual who has provided, directly or indirectly, consideration for the asset for the immediate or future benefit, direct

Shri Dilip J. Thakkar, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6408/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

beneficial owner/account holder in profil clients" concernes. 7 That in these base documents the assessee Sh. Dilip J Thakkar is appearing as trustee beneficial owner protector/account holder of the trust which is maintaining account in HSBC Bank Geneva 15.16. The assessee has not furnished the complete bank account ... along with your wife Indira Thakkar and your two daughters Mitali Lakhanpal and Deval Thakkar have been mentioned as beneficial owner. Kindly explain the status in the backdrop of replies given by you in response to above queries wherein you have mentioned that neither you nor any of your family

Shir Dilip J. Thakkar, Mumbai vs. Assistatnt Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2175/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2006-07

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

beneficial owner/account holder in profil clients" concernes. 7 That in these base documents the assessee Sh. Dilip J Thakkar is appearing as trustee beneficial owner protector/account holder of the trust which is maintaining account in HSBC Bank Geneva 15. 16. The assessee has not furnished the complete bank account ... along with your wife Indira Thakkar and your two daughters Mitali Lakhanpal and Deval Thakkar have been mentioned as beneficial owner. Kindly explain the status in the backdrop of replies given by you in response to above queries wherein you have mentioned that neither you nor any of your family

Involute Engineering Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 12(2), New Delhi

The appeals is allowed

ITA 6884/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Involute Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-30, Anand Niketan, Circle-12(2), Basement, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacs2041N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Arora, Ca; Ms Pallavi Sharma, Ca & Shri Jeetan Nagpal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-22, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.208/18-19/Cit(A)-22, New Delhi Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 18.03.2016, Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Dcit, Circle- 12(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

shareholding. The provision of section 2(22)(e) is very specific and applicable to the facts of the case. The appellant is beneficial owner of shares of SIEL. The SIEL is a company in which public are not substantially interested. The payment has been made by way of advance

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Delhi Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 5326/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

been made for want of non execution of sale deed, Page | 8 ITA No.5326 & 5282/Del/2016 > the purchasers with respect to lease rent, has become beneficial owner as per provisions section 27/(iii) of the Act, and > the rent received by the appellant from the tenants, is reimbursed to the purchaser ... beneficial owners. From the above, it is clear that the amount of rent reimbursed to the purchasers at Rs. 3,67,06,904/-, is not the income of the appellant and the reimbursement to the purchasers has been made after TDS. In view of the above

Delhi Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 5282/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kishore Kumar Jain, Chennai

ITA 2849/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2847, 2848 & 2849 /Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2 (2), Chennai. Vs. Kishore Kumar Jain, 62, Bvk Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. [Pan: Aahpj-0401-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Mr. Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit Mr. B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. : 13.03.2025 : 26.05.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai, All Dated 10.09.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Of, By This Consolidated Order. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Common Grounds Of Appeal For All The

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kishore Kumar Jain, Chennai

In the result the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2848/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2847, 2848 & 2849 /Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Kishore Kumar Jain, Income Tax, Vs. 62, Bvk Sampath Road, Central Circle -2 (2), Vepery, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan: Aahpj-0401-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Shivanand K Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Mr. B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

must be conclusively established that the payments were indeed loans or advances made from accumulated profits, and that the shareholder was the beneficial owner receiving these funds for personal benefit. In the assessment order, the AO relied upon the phrase “any payment” but conveniently omitted to consider the subsequent phrase ... 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kishore Kumar Jain, Chennai

ITA 2847/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2847, 2848 & 2849 /Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2 (2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Kishore Kumar Jain, Vs.62, Bvk Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. [Pan: Aahpj-0401-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Mr. Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit Mr. B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. 13.03.2025 26.05.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai, All Dated 10.09.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Of, By This Consolidated Order. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Common Grounds Of Appeal For All The

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

must be conclusively established that the payments were indeed loans or advances made from accumulated profits, and that the shareholder was the beneficial owner receiving these funds for personal benefit. In the assessment order, the AO relied upon the phrase "any payment” but conveniently omitted to consider the subsequent phrase ... 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

Thomas John Muthoot, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Central Circle, Trivandrum

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

ITA 903/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S. CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)Section 14A

dividend income received on such investments. The appellant had clarified that although the shares were held in the name of the appellant, the beneficial owner of the shares is the partnership firms, in which the appellant and his family members are partners, since the partnership firms cannot be registered shareholder