“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

Shell International Petroleum Company Limitedium, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International 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 995/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

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

Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 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 2307/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

M/S. Shell Interational Petroleum Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1244/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

M/S Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (It)- 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7499/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Respondent)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Ajay Bakliwal, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 129Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 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 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 ... notice u/s 148. He accepted this observation as a Gospel truth. He did not even try to find out whether the assessee is a beneficial owner of shares and whether he has substantial interest in the concern M/s Vinamra Enterprises & Nav Bharat Nirman Co. During the assessment proceedings

Hari Kishan Rathi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

ITA 2566/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 2566 to 2573 & 2910 to 2917/Del/2024 Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd. IN

Binod Kumar Mahipal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 677/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Ito, Ward-2(1) Binod Kumar Mahipal Aaykar Bhavan P-7, 1B, Raja Subodh Mulick Square, Ground Floor, Dharmatala, S.O. Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700013 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adzpm8369G Assessee By : Shri Ankit Jalan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Altaf Hussain, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jalan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

further the assessee has introduced his own money through the 41 persons and has sold its own property and thereafter itself became the Benami beneficial owner of the property, is factually wrong and false. There is no application of mind by the Assessing Officer to the facts and circumstances

Harvinder Singh Bullar, Vpo Ranjitgarh, Muktsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Muktsar

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

ITA 574/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahayi.T.A. No.574/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

bank account all throughout the period held by him in custody, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not the beneficial owner of such funds and has not gained anything out of the said sum and he has simply held the same as a custodian of his family

Dahyabhai Shankarbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.251/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Dahyabhai Shankarbhai Patel The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Ashutosha, 300 Kadamnagar Ward-1(3)(1), V/S. Nr. Mehsana Nagar Vadodara Nizampura, Vadodara-390 024 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acspp 2248 R (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Whereby The Cit(A) Upheld The Addition Of Rs.2,78,14,620/- Made By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As "Ao”] Under Section 69 Of The Act As Unexplained Investment. Dahyabhai Shankarbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69

brings into play the concept of beneficial ownership. While the bank and DEMAT accounts may be in the legal names of individual partners, the beneficial owner of the funds and securities therein is the partnership firm. The assessee has demonstrated that the amounts credited in the joint bank account were

Ramasami Palanisamy, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Erode

ITA 2314/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147

ser siiasiteen, ‘alae, das! IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI Auld. af, ate wea ud ft sftaas

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax-Circle-6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2127/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT-DR

Section 3

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Dy-CIT (Int. Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 749/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T. (TP

Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Dy.CIT of Income Tax (Internationsl Taxation) -2(1) (1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1234/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T. (TP

Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Jt CIT (International Taxationa), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1027/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1165/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit (International Taxation)- 1(1)(1), Room No. 114, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, 11Th & 12Th & 14Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T. (TP

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 2 (1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 458/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T. (TP

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 4652/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T. (TP

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 2313/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T. (TP

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1273/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T. (TP

DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1165/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T. (TP

ADIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs. Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1839/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T. (TP