← 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

Thomas John Muthoot, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvalla Range, Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 897/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 May 2025AY 2011-12

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

Thomas George Muthoot, Ernakulam vs. DCIT, Trivandrum

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

ITA 895/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

Thomas George Muthoot, Ernakulam vs. DCIT, Trivandrum

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

ITA 894/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 May 2025AY 2016-17

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

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

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

ITA 893/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 May 2025AY 2015-16

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

Thomas George Muthoot, Trivandrum vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Central Circle, Trivvandrum, Trivandrum

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

ITA 892/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 May 2025AY 2014-15

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

Thomas George Muthoot, Ernakulam vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income-Tax/Circle-1/Thiruvalla, Trivandrum

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

ITA 891/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 May 2025AY 2013-14

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

Thomas George Muthoot, Ernakulam vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Thiruvalla Range, Trivandrum

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

ITA 889/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 May 2025AY 2011-12

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

Thomas Muthoot, Erankulam vs. DCIT, Trivandrum

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

ITA 888/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

Thomas Muthoot, Ernakulam vs. DCIT/Central Circle, Trivandrum

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

ITA 887/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 May 2025AY 2016-17

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

Thomas Muthoot, Ernakulam vs. DCIT/Central Circle, Trivandrum

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

ITA 886/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 May 2025AY 2015-16

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

Thomas Muthoot, Trivandrum vs. DCIT, Trivandrum

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

ITA 885/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 May 2025AY 2014-15

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

Thomas Muthoot, Ernakulam vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 884/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 May 2025AY 2013-14

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

Thomas Muthoot, Ernakulam vs. DCIT, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 883/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 May 2025AY 2012-13

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

Thomas Muthoot, Ernakulam vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvalla Range, Trivandrum

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

ITA 882/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 May 2025AY 2011-12

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan, Delhi vs. Swapna Roy, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3093/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit Vs. Swapna Roy Central Circle-01, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, E-2, Ara Centre, Aliganj, Lucknow, Jhandewalan Extension, Uttar Pradesh-226024 New Delhi Pan: Acepr360F Appellant Respondent

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that Ms. Swapna Roy is beneficial Owner of these bank accounts. 4. The Appellant craves to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal. 3. Brief facts

Rose Serviced Apartments (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-21(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 4041/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115BSection 68

claimed receipt of Rs.72,00,000/- from Smt. Rashmi Gupta cannot be held arisen on the transfer of the property as assessee being beneficial owner. We therefore, hold that the AO has rightly taxed it as deeming income 15 Rose Serviced Apartments (India) P. Ltd. under section

Kisan, Nizamabad vs. ACIT., Circle-1, Nizamabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 652/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, SR-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)

purpose of section 32 of the Act, the assessee need ITA No.652/Hyd/2023 8 not be a legal owner, but must be the beneficial owner i.e. the person who exercised the control over the assets and uses the assets in the course of business. In support of their argument

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nirguna Balik Satsang Mandal (India), New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s misc

ITA 72/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Abhishek Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 69

mentioned like M/s. JTL Enterprises Ltd., M/s. JTL Trust, Smt. Jamuna Devi Thakurdas Lakhani and Shri Bansi Lakhani New York were also mentioned as beneficial owners and beneficiaries. This linkage of these persons form the assessee trust or the trustees have not been found to be established fully except

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nirguna Balik Satsang Mandal (India), New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s misc

ITA 71/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Abhishek Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 69

mentioned like M/s. JTL Enterprises Ltd., M/s. JTL Trust, Smt. Jamuna Devi Thakurdas Lakhani and Shri Bansi Lakhani New York were also mentioned as beneficial owners and beneficiaries. This linkage of these persons form the assessee trust or the trustees have not been found to be established fully except

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nirguna Balik Satsang Mandal (India), New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s misc

ITA 70/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Abhishek Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 69

mentioned like M/s. JTL Enterprises Ltd., M/s. JTL Trust, Smt. Jamuna Devi Thakurdas Lakhani and Shri Bansi Lakhani New York were also mentioned as beneficial owners and beneficiaries. This linkage of these persons form the assessee trust or the trustees have not been found to be established fully except