← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Surat vs. Shah Maganlal Gulabchand Choksi, Surat

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 224/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 131Section 250Section 271ASection 69

existing entity. The address of M/s S.R. Traders was found to be non-existent. The assessee was accordingly treated as eventual beneficial owner of cash of Rs.13,36,00,000/- and accordingly the said amount was added on protective basis u/s 68 of the Act to the total income ... peak credit has been added, this addition of Rs.76 lakh was deleted. 11. The CIT(A) dismissed the ground of assessee and held that beneficial owner of the bank account of M/s Nirav & Co. was the appellant firm though its partner, Mr. Himanshu Shah. 11.1 The CIT(A) held that

Shah Maganlal Gulabchand Choksi, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 197/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 131Section 250Section 271ASection 69

existing entity. The address of M/s S.R. Traders was found to be non-existent. The assessee was accordingly treated as eventual beneficial owner of cash of Rs.13,36,00,000/- and accordingly the said amount was added on protective basis u/s 68 of the Act to the total income ... peak credit has been added, this addition of Rs.76 lakh was deleted. 11. The CIT(A) dismissed the ground of assessee and held that beneficial owner of the bank account of M/s Nirav & Co. was the appellant firm though its partner, Mr. Himanshu Shah. 11.1 The CIT(A) held that

DCIT CC 1(1), Mumbai vs. Harshad Ramniklal Mehta, Worli

ITA 3809/MUM/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR

point noted by the Tribunal is that the documents available with the department clinches preponderance of probability in favour of the assessee, i.e., the beneficial owner's identity signed by proxy holder ABN Amro Trust Company (Suisee) SA, which belongs to Dryade Stiftung created on 2nd July, 1986, which

Shri Krishan Kumar Jalan, Bangalore vs. ITO, W-1, Sirsa

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 933/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

notice the detailed D'mat statement of depository / depository participant showing credit and debit of 7000 shares of "NCL Research & Financial Services Ltd." of beneficial owner. 7. In the premises impugned order is sustained and appeal of the Assessee is dismissed. 68 8. In the result appeal of the assessee

DCIT CC 8.2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 4348/MUM/2024[2003 04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Sunil Kumar Singh, Juducial Member Ita Nos. 4324, 4331 & 4345 To 4348/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri NimeshVoraFor Respondent: Smt. SanyogitaNagpal, (CIT, DR)
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

total income of the assessee for the assessment year 2001-02. The AO also held that assessee along with his two sons were beneficial owner of this foreign account and accordingly 1/3 amount was added in the hands of 3 persons namely, Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani, Shri, Mukesh Ambani ... taxmann.com 84 (Mumbai) relied upon by the ld. DR are distinguishable from the case of the assessee. In that case the assessee was clearly beneficial owner of deposit in foreign bank account showing Rs. 196 crores peak amount based on Base Note. In that case the assessee has not explained

DCIT CC 8.2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 4347/MUM/2024[2004 05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Sunil Kumar Singh, Juducial Member Ita Nos. 4324, 4331 & 4345 To 4348/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri NimeshVoraFor Respondent: Smt. SanyogitaNagpal, (CIT, DR)
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

total income of the assessee for the assessment year 2001-02. The AO also held that assessee along with his two sons were beneficial owner of this foreign account and accordingly 1/3 amount was added in the hands of 3 persons namely, Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani, Shri, Mukesh Ambani ... taxmann.com 84 (Mumbai) relied upon by the ld. DR are distinguishable from the case of the assessee. In that case the assessee was clearly beneficial owner of deposit in foreign bank account showing Rs. 196 crores peak amount based on Base Note. In that case the assessee has not explained

DCIT CC 8.2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 4346/MUM/2024[2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Sunil Kumar Singh, Juducial Member Ita Nos. 4324, 4331 & 4345 To 4348/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri NimeshVoraFor Respondent: Smt. SanyogitaNagpal, (CIT, DR)
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

total income of the assessee for the assessment year 2001-02. The AO also held that assessee along with his two sons were beneficial owner of this foreign account and accordingly 1/3 amount was added in the hands of 3 persons namely, Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani, Shri, Mukesh Ambani ... taxmann.com 84 (Mumbai) relied upon by the ld. DR are distinguishable from the case of the assessee. In that case the assessee was clearly beneficial owner of deposit in foreign bank account showing Rs. 196 crores peak amount based on Base Note. In that case the assessee has not explained

DCIT CC 8.2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 4345/MUM/2024[2006 07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Sunil Kumar Singh, Juducial Member Ita Nos. 4324, 4331 & 4345 To 4348/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri NimeshVoraFor Respondent: Smt. SanyogitaNagpal, (CIT, DR)
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

total income of the assessee for the assessment year 2001-02. The AO also held that assessee along with his two sons were beneficial owner of this foreign account and accordingly 1/3 amount was added in the hands of 3 persons namely, Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani, Shri, Mukesh Ambani ... taxmann.com 84 (Mumbai) relied upon by the ld. DR are distinguishable from the case of the assessee. In that case the assessee was clearly beneficial owner of deposit in foreign bank account showing Rs. 196 crores peak amount based on Base Note. In that case the assessee has not explained

DCIT CC 8.2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, Mumbai

In the result all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4331/MUM/2024[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri NimeshVoraFor Respondent: Smt. SanyogitaNagpal, (CIT, DR)
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

total income of the assessee for the assessment year 2001-02. The AO also held that assessee along with his two sons were beneficial owner of this foreign account and accordingly 1/3 amount was added in the hands of 3 persons namely, Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani, Shri, Mukesh Ambani ... 6/27/2001 Date de clóture du profil 1/9/2006 Statut du profil Clôturé Nature du profil Nominatif 1 Type de client Société domiciliée Lien personne/profil client Beneficial Owner Détalls du lien CLOSED / BENEFICIAL OWNER Info signatures (non référencé) Correspondance envoyée au client IBAN: CH13 0868 9050 9111 13907 Patrimoine constaté en Décembre

DCIT CC 8.2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 4324/MUM/2024[2002 03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Sunil Kumar Singh, Juducial Member Ita Nos. 4324, 4331 & 4345 To 4348/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri NimeshVoraFor Respondent: Smt. SanyogitaNagpal, (CIT, DR)
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

total income of the assessee for the assessment year 2001-02. The AO also held that assessee along with his two sons were beneficial owner of this foreign account and accordingly 1/3 amount was added in the hands of 3 persons namely, Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani, Shri, Mukesh Ambani ... taxmann.com 84 (Mumbai) relied upon by the ld. DR are distinguishable from the case of the assessee. In that case the assessee was clearly beneficial owner of deposit in foreign bank account showing Rs. 196 crores peak amount based on Base Note. In that case the assessee has not explained

Gopal & Sons HUF, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 32(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1701/KOL/2024[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2025AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

case of normal business and repaid the said loan through banking channel in the subsequent FY, the assessee cannot be said to be beneficial owner of the money without any cogent evidence brought by the AO on record and addition under section 68 by the AO cannot be sustained. Hence

DCIT It 3 3 2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Pramarica Aspf II Cyprus Holding Ltd, Ctprus

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3041/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai/ Shri YogeshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115A(1)(a)Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 148

144C(3) of the Act was passed on 17.09.2019. In the said order of reassessment the AO held that the assessee is not the beneficial owner of the interest income and is only a conduit entity to avail the beneficial tax rate under the treaty. Therefore the AO held that ... assessee? 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that the assessee is the beneficial owner of the interest income on CCDs received from India and thus, interest income was taxable @10% as per India- Cyprus DTAA

DCIT It 332 Mumbai, Income Tax vs. Pramarica Aspf II Cyprus Holding Ltd, Cyprus

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3040/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai/ Shri YogeshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115A(1)(a)Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 148

144C(3) of the Act was passed on 17.09.2019. In the said order of reassessment the AO held that the assessee is not the beneficial owner of the interest income and is only a conduit entity to avail the beneficial tax rate under the treaty. Therefore the AO held that ... assessee? 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that the assessee is the beneficial owner of the interest income on CCDs received from India and thus, interest income was taxable @10% as per India- Cyprus DTAA

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2059/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 234ASection 234BSection 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

Mehrunnisan Sherwani, Okhla vs. Income Tax Officer W 28(1), Delhi

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

ITA 4728/DEL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

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

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Jayanti Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6548/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69

consent form required the appellant /assessee to furnish the account number(s), master particulars, name(s) of account holders, name(s) of the beneficial owner(s)/settlor(s)/beneficiaries, and if the account was held through an entity, whether he had the necessary legal authority to grant access

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Jayanti Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6547/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69

consent form required the appellant /assessee to furnish the account number(s), master particulars, name(s) of account holders, name(s) of the beneficial owner(s)/settlor(s)/beneficiaries, and if the account was held through an entity, whether he had the necessary legal authority to grant access

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Jayanti Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6546/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69

consent form required the appellant /assessee to furnish the account number(s), master particulars, name(s) of account holders, name(s) of the beneficial owner(s)/settlor(s)/beneficiaries, and if the account was held through an entity, whether he had the necessary legal authority to grant access

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Jayanti Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6545/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69

consent form required the appellant /assessee to furnish the account number(s), master particulars, name(s) of account holders, name(s) of the beneficial owner(s)/settlor(s)/beneficiaries, and if the account was held through an entity, whether he had the necessary legal authority to grant access

M/S. Piaggio Vehicles Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 868/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.868/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Piaggio Vehicles Private Ltd., V The Assistant Sky One Corporate Park, S Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Survey Tax, Circle-4, Pune. No.239/02, Near Pune Airport, Pune – 411032. Pan: Aabcp1225G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddhesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Vidya Ratan - Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune For Assessment Year 2015-16 Dated 06.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Refund Of Excess Taxes Paid On Dividend Distributed On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Granting The Benefit Of Article 11 Of The India-

Section 115Section 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 4

State, say India to a resident of the other Contracting State (say France) may be taxed in that other State (France). However, if the beneficial owner of the Dividend is a resident in France, the tax so charged shall not exceed specified percent. The first condition is that