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

In the result, Revenue’s misc

ITA 69/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2009-10

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 68/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: PendingITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

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

Section 69

M/S Thanjavur Commerece Pvt; Ltd., Nagpur vs. A, C.I.T Cent Cir. 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 182/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154Section 2(22)(e)

otherwise)made after the 31st day of may 1987 by way of advance 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 a right to participate in profits) holdings not less

Vipul Chandrakant Sawalwade, Pune vs. The ITO Ward 13(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 659/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.659/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

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 ... amount of the dividends if the beneficial owner is a company which owns at least 10 per cent of the voting stock of the company paying the dividends. (b) 25 per cent of the gross amount of the dividends in all other cases. Sub-paragraph (b) and not sub-paragraph

ACIT, Central Cirlce-1, Nashik vs. Avinash Knatilal Jain, Jalgaon

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

ITA 26/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.26/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Avinash Kantilal Jain, Nashik. 36, Aryan Bunglow, Samta Nagar Road, Venketesh Colony- 425001. Pan : Acwpj9538Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare : Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.10.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-12 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs 3,27,81,102/- On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) Of The I.T. Act By Not Considering The Contents Of The Deeming Provision. 02. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That The Decision In The Case Of Pradeep Kumar Malhotra Vs. Cit(Calcutta High Court), Which Was Relied By Ld.Cit(A) Has Distinguishable Facts

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 44A

must be construed to mean those advances or loans which a shareholder enjoys simply on account of being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares. If such loan or advance is given to such share holder as a consequence of any further consideration received from the shareholder, then ... which the public are substantially interested, of any sum 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

Shyam Sunder Gupta, Kanpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kanpur

ITA 168/LKW/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 150Section 150(1)Section 153(3)(ii)Section 2(22)(e)Section 251(2)Section 41(1)

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 Mr. Shyam Sunder Gupta AY 2012-13 a fixed rate of dividend whether with or without

Rama Devi Tummala, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 778/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

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

M/S Abhman Distributor Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1410/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

from the investigation wing of the Department that the assessee is a private limited company with Mr. Devendra Mondal and Mr. Soumitra Sinha as beneficial owners. There were credits in the Bank account with Indian Bank and all the credits were transfer transactions ranging from ... ADIT (Inv.), Unit-3(2), Kolkata, that the assessee, a private limited company, having Shri Devendra Mondal and Shri Soumitra Sinha as its beneficial owners, in its bank account No.961998719 maintain with Indian Bank, has received huge transfer transaction in round amounts ranging from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.55

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rakjot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 81/RJT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara | बनाम Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Vs. Pan: Aampl 3903 F Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोटन्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJКОТ BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 80/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/03/2025 : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

addition on that account should have been made. Enjoyment of funds by Mehul Nandha is apparent from this audit report and he was the beneficial owner of the account. Therefore, addition made on account of profit from derivative transactions from the impugned account is merely based upon conjectures and surmises

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

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

ITA 79/RJT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rakjot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 78/RJT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The Actit, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 77/RJT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 76/RJT/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

DCIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Anurag Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, miscellaneous application of the Revenue is

ITA 6538/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshma No. 140/Del/2020 (In I.T.A No.6538/Del/2017) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 बनाम Dcit, Anurag Dalmia, 2Nd Floor, Indraprakash Building-21, Central Circle-26, Vs. Room No.323, Ara Centre, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

documents have been reproduced in the assessment order. These documents revealed that in the bank accounts of certain entities, the assessee was either beneficial owner in the account or had been shown as the person having right of inspection or as account holder. The name of the entities which held

Pradeep Wig, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-5, New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 406/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Allegedly as per the information collected from the competent authorities of BVI and Singapore Shri Pradeep Wig and his other family members were the beneficial owner of the bank accounts held in the name of CCL. Further, it was also found that CCL was an investment holding company ... assessee, Mr Pradeep Wig was already confronted with the said information available with the income-tax department. On confrontation, the assessee denied being the beneficial owner of the said company and its bank accounts. The AO has also stated that during the assessment proceedings, after analyzing the documents seized during

Cobol Technologies P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5505/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

public are substantially interested) by way of advance or loan to a shareholder; ii. The recipient of the payment is a shareholder and a beneficial owner holding not less than 10% of the voting power; & iii. The company making payment has accumulated profits, the payment made is considered as deemed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Reji Abraham, Chennai

In the result, CO of the assessee vide CO-53/Chny/2024 is dismissed

ITA 1762/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita-1762 / Chny/2024, Assessment Years-2011-12 आयकर अपील सं./Co-53 / Chny/2024, Assessment Years-2011-12 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Reji Abraham, Tax, Corp-Circle-1(1) No.113, Janapriya Crest, Chennai. Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. [Pan: Adqpr6864A] आयकर अपील सं./Co-53 / Chny/2024, Assessment Years-2011-12 Reji Abraham, Assistant Commissioner Of Income No.113, Janapriya Crest, Tax, Corp-Circle-1(1) Pantheon Road, Chennai. Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. [Pan: Adqpr6864A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : The Below Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue For Ay-2011-12 & Ay-2011-12 Contesting The Order Of Ld. First Appellate Authority Indicated Column-E, Herein Below:-

For Appellant: Mr. N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT

Section 2(22)

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 not less

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra vs. Mohammad Ashraf Qureshi, Agra

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 137/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Deependra Mohan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

must be construed to mean those advances or loans which a shareholder enjoys for simply on account of being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares. If such loan or advance is given to such shareholder as a consequence of any further consideration which is beneficial ... construed to mean those advances or loans which a share holder enjoys for simply on account of 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 not less

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)_4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is not in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are allowed and Ground No

ITA 3317/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

services may also be taxed in the Contracting State in which they arise and according to the law 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