“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

Rics India Private Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT Circle-3(1), Haryana

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

ITA 816/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmarics India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Additional/ Joint/ Deputy/ Gf-17, Ground Floor, Assistant Commissioner Of Block B, Vatika Atrium Income Tax/ Income-Tax Centre 53, Gurgaon Officer, National Faceless 122002 Assessment Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcr7432K

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92C

Networking with businesses and industry. c) Networking with higher education establishments. d) Collection of membership subscription fees locally and remittance to RICS as beneficial owner (acting as a mere collection agent). 4. The Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 was filed by the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. The Reliance Motor Company Ltd., Chennai

Appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 404/CHNY/2024[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2024AY 1999-00

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.404/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. The Reliance Motor Company Ltd, Corporate Ward 3(1) 761, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai 600 002. [Pan: Aaact 1230A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. M. Karthikeyan, Irs, Addl Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate & Shri. S. Nagarajan, C.A. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karthikeyan, IRS, Addl CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate &

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

case of M/s. National Travel Agency vs. CIT, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court revealed that One cannot be a registered owner and beneficial owner in the sense of a beneficiary of a trust or otherwise at the same time. Therefore, the moment there is a shareholder, who need ... necessarily be a member of the company on its register, who is the beneficial owner of shares, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) gets attracted. 7. The CIT(A) failed to consider the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Gopal and sons

Sh. Pooran Mal Kanwat, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

18. As a result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the impugned orders passed by Learned CIT(A), and impugned assessments framed by Assessing Officer, are set aside

ITA 82/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 50CSection 69

Transfer of Property of Act and bench observed that neither in the Transfer of Property Act nor in the Income Tax concept of beneficial owner and that too without bringing any evidence on record. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench

Sms Tolls and Developers, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 348/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 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

Foseco India Limited, Pune vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1120/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Atul PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 115Section 115JSection 237

Special Bench (SB) of Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT taxable @ 15% in the hands in case of DCIT Vs Total Oil India Pvt. of beneficial owner of the Ltd. ITA No 6997/MUM/2019 dated 20- dividend i.e. shareholders. 04-2023. The Ld. CIT(A) stated that the Consequently, dividend of Protocol ... ITAT did not appreciate the fact that there is no such requirement and dividend has always been considered as tax in the hands of beneficial owner. 4. In respect to the above discussions and judicial pronouncements, the appellant most humbly submits that it is eligible for refund

Foseco India Limited, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1119/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Atul PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 115Section 115JSection 237

Foseco India Limited, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 1 (1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1118/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Atul PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 115Section 115JSection 237

Foseco India Limited, Pune vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1117/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Atul PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 115Section 115JSection 237

Foseco India Limited, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 1(!), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1116/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Atul PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 115Section 115JSection 237

Foseco India Limited, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1115/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Atul PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 115Section 115JSection 237

Foseco India Limited, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 1 (1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1114/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Atul PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 115Section 115JSection 237

Msn Pharmachem Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

ITA 885/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

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

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 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

Msn Pharmachem Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

ITA 884/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

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

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

Tricentis Gmbh, Austria vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International-Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated above

ITA 3526/DEL/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: BEFORESHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B

some other entities located in other jurisdictions, however, he has failed to identify even a single such entity which can be held as the beneficial owner of income and not the assessee. No evidence has been brought on record by the Departmental authorities to demonstrate that revenue earned

Tricentis Gmbh, Austria vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2705/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: BEFORESHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B

Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT(OSD) Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1621/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 90

State in which such Royalty arise (in this case China) according to the laws of that contracting State. However, if the recipient thereof is beneficial owner of such royalty, then tax so charged shall not exceed 10% of gross amount of royalty. Thus, in view of Article 12 I.T.A

The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1517/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 90

Ambaji Avenues Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3922/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2012-13 Ambaji Avenues Private Limited Income Tax Officer- 9(1)(2), Mumbai A-109, Akshay Mittal Indl. Premises, M.V. Road, Sanjay Vs. Building No. 5, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400059. Pan: Aajca 8264 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ramesh Kumar Malpani Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Kumar MalpaniFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

respect of Samkit Finance Pvt. Ltd., Grewal Steel & Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Shareen Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. with particulars of persons who were beneficial owners of shareholding not less than 10% of the voting power at any time of the previous year. The ld. counsel also referred page

Ohm Juniper Longterm Fund Limited, Mauritius vs. DCIT Intl. Taxation -2(2)(2), New Delhi

ITA 2722/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Ohm Juniper Longterm Vs. Dcit, Fund Ltd, International Taxation- 5Th Floor, Ebene Esplanade, 2(22)(2), 24 Cybercity, Ebene, New Delhi Mauritius (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aacco2383D

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 234BSection 234CSection 90(2)

management and control of applicants was not with their respective Board of Directors in Mauritius but with ultimate holding company in UAE who was beneficial owner and controller of entire group structure and applicant companies were only a 'see-through entity'. D. The structure of assesse company is transparent/pass through

Rao Pahlad Singh Education Society, Haryana vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 477/CHANDI/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Oct 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: The Ld. Pcit, For Grant Of Approval. Alongwith The Application, The Assessee Filed A Copy

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate and Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(2)

deny the exemption. It was held that it also requires verification as to whether the claim of the assessee that it is the beneficial owner of the said property and the right to dispose them also lies with the society, is correct. It was held that it is the substance