“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

DCIT, CC 1, Chandigarh vs. Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh

The appeals of the revenue are treated as dismissed

ITA 505/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Section 127Section 153DSection 2

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 share (not being share entitled to a fixed rate of dividend whether with or without a right to participate in profits) holding not less

Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 489/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

benefit extended by private limited company to its shareholders holding shares not less than 10% as beneficial owner of shares (not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend income). There is no dispute with regard to shareholding of the assessee. Now coming to the amount of advance taken ... 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 share (not being share entitled to a fixed rate of dividend whether with or without a right to participate in profits) holding not less

Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 480/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(22)(e)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Thane, Ashar It Park, Thane West vs. Darshan Enterprises, Ghodbunder Road, Thane

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4969/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 68

duty and to reduce tax liability under Income Tax Act is merely based on surmises and conjectures as the owner as well as the beneficial owners of the land and project prior to and post the revaluation remains the same. There is in fact no transfer of asset from

Loparex Holding Bv, Mumbai vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 4813/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

Section 234DSection 270ASection 274

India and the taxes therefore shall be subject to a maximum rate of 10%. 2.2 It was further, submitted that, assessee being a beneficial owner of dividends, the rate at which tax can be levied in India on such dividend income is capped at 10% as per Article ... where the said dividend is paid to 4 ITA No.4813/Mum/2023; A.Y. 2021-22 Loparex Holding BV a resident of the other state, if the beneficial owner of dividend holds directly at least 10% of the capital of the company paying dividends. 2.4 Accordingly, the assessee invoked the MFN clause provided

Shell International Petroeum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5509/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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

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

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

ITA 3053/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

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

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

Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3049/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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

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

Sumitkumar Devchandbhai Savaliya, Bodakdev vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 964/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

found that these facts in fact, strengthen the case of the department and that his closely held family company is diverting funds to the beneficial owner. Section 2(22)(e) applies for loan taken and not net loan hence, this plea cannot be entertained. It is a very clear ... exception to; the applicability of section 2(22)(e). These are not at all related to buslrress but only personal investments by the beneficial owner. Thus, I find that the AO reasonably made the addition and the appellant has failed to "show that the sum was given for business purpose

Ahluwalia Erectors and Febrications Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. ACIT Cir-1 Kota, Kota

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 953/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Jatin Garg, Chandigarh vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1019/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69

information received from the DOIT (Inv.), Mohali, which have no relevance to the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. Sh. Jatin Garg is neither beneficial owner nor beneficiary in the alleged benami transaction case. He gave the money on 23.05.2017 through banking channels to proprietorship concern of Sh. Sanjit Singh ... sources and genuineness of the loan transaction for making addition u/s 69 of the Act. It was submitted that the appellant is neither beneficial owner nor beneficiary in the alleged benami transaction case, he gave the money on 23.05.2017 through banking channels to proprietorship concern of Sh. Sanjit Singh Randhawa

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy, Kadapa

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is

ITA 670/HYD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.A.Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Ms.M.Narmada, CIT-DR and

Section 132Section 56(1)(vii)

sold to third party, M/s Parcifim SAS. The assessee is neither the legal owner of the shares of Bharati Cement Corporation Ltd. nor the beneficial owner. Therefore, the transactions of sale of shares by third party cannot be regarded as transaction of assessee, only on the basis of some documents ... basis, as discussed in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer has brought out clear facts to the effect that the assessee is beneficial owner of the shares of Bharati 15 ITA No.670/Hyd/2022 & CO No.1/Hyd/2023 Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy*= Cement Corporation Ltd. held in the name of Dalmia Bhara' Enterprises

M/S Yum Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2369/DEL/2016[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2025AY 1999-00

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

Subramaniam Swaminathan Iyer, Bhilai, Durg vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed/partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 71/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.71/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Subramaniam Swaminathan Iyer 12-A/7, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai (C.G.)-490 020 Pan: Anwps2381P

For Appellant: S/shri Milind Bhusari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 68

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. Merino Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 292/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata…………………….................................……Revenue Vs. M/S Merino Industries Ltd.…………....................................……...…..…..Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Merino Industries Ltd …………………….…….......................…… Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata.…….................................……....…........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same

Section 2(22)Section 250Section 801A

DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Merino Industries Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 174/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 2(22)Section 250Section 801A

ACIT-27(3), Mumbai vs. Surjit Singh Amrik Singh Saini, Mumbai

ITA 4029/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, CA &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. M/S. Maithri Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1124/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

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 holding not less than 10% of the voting power, or to any Concern in which such shareholder is member or partner

ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. M/S. Msn Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

ITA 1123/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

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

Section 132Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)(e)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Msn Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1122/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Bleand

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

Section 132Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)(e)

1072/Hyd/2024 & ITA No.1123/Hyd/2024 substantially interested, of any sum by way of advance or loan to 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