“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

Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(2), Ghaziabad vs. Rajeev Kumar Arora, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

ITA 698/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT DR

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

meaning of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the IT. Act 1961 in the hands of Sh. Rajeev Arora as he is a beneficial owner of shares in both the companies. On perusal of the record it is seen that the assessee has filed

Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad vs. Rajeev Kumar Arora, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

ITA 642/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT DR

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

Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad vs. Rajeev Kumar Arora, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

ITA 641/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT DR

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

Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad vs. Rajeev Kumar Arora, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

ITA 622/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT DR

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

M/S. Atria Wind (Kadambur) Private Limited, Bengaluau vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 692/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Vilas V. Shinde, D.R

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 47

depository or participant of such beneficial interest in respect of securities shall be chargeable to income-tax as the income of the beneficial owner of the previous year in which such transfer took place and shall not be regarded as income of the depository who is deemed ... securities shall be determined on the basis of the first-in-first-out method. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, the expressions "beneficial owner", "depository" and "security" shall have the meanings respectively assigned M/s. Atria Wind (Kadambur) Private Limited, Bangalore Page 7 of 19 to them in clauses

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Welkin Telecom Infra Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1087/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav (Vice President), Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice President & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member

Jyoti Prakash Deshmukh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Kalyan

In the result ground no. 5

ITA 3295/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountantjyoti Prakash Deshmukh F003, Shiv Shanti Complex, Manjarli, Badlapur West, Maharashtra – 421 301, Pan No.: Agspd2705K. ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2), Kalyan Mohini Plaza Building, Wayle Nagar, Khadkpada, Kalyan, Maharashtra – 421 301 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Rokhriyal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 251

required to furnish a return under this sub- section and who at any time during the previous year,— (a) holds, as a beneficial owner or otherwise, any asset (including any financial interest in any entity) located outside India or has signing authority in any account located outside India

Vivek Gangadhar Mehendale, Santacruz, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(3)(1), Piramal Chambers, Mumbai

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

ITA 2644/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: ShriAnil SatheFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, SRDR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 54FSection 64(1)

lncome Tax {Appeals} erred in not "appreciating that the exemption under section 54 was clearly allowable on two counts namely the appellant being the beneficial owner of the residential house purchased and the house sold or alternatively if the income was to be computed in the hands of the wife ... income is declared in the husband’s return filed under section 139(1) of the Act. The 7 Vivek Gangadhar Mehendale assessee is the beneficial owner of the property. It is declared that the entire investment was made by the assessee himself to purchase the flat in his wife

Testec Asia Limited, United Arab Emirates vs. The Deputy Director of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 44/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.44/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2022-23 Testec Asia Limited The Dy.Director Of Income Tax बनाम/ United Arab Emirates Circle, International Taxation V/S. P.O. Box No.16799, Dubai, Vadodara- 390 007 United Arab Emirates – 999999 (Or) Villa 11, Street 5, Medows 1, Emirates Hill, United Arab Emirates – Not Listed 999999 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aajct 4035 A (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Virat Bhavsar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Virat Bhavsar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 205Section 250

assessee is a foreign company engaged in investment activities managed from out of India and is a beneficial owner of American Depository Receipts (ADRs) of Vedanta Ltd. The ADRs were held through Credit Suisse AG. In November 2021, Vedanta Ltd. announced the compulsory redemption of the ADR program. Consequently ... broker through which the ADRs were held, and not directly in the name of the assessee. Since the assessee was only the beneficial owner, the CIT(A) held that credit for TDS could only be allowed if the assessee complied with the procedural requirements, including filing declarations with the deductor

Purnendu Roy, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer 22(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1376/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

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

Subhash E. Dhargave, Mumbai vs. Milestone Real Estate Funds, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 59/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 10Section 10(35)

venture capital undertaking; and (iii) it has not invested in any venture capital undertaking in which its director or a substantial shareholder (being a beneficial owner of equity shares exceeding ten per cent of its equity share capital) holds, either individually or collectively, equity shares in excess of fifteen

Life Span Infrastructure ( India) Pvt Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO Ward 2(5), Trivandrum

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 139/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Life Span Infrastructure (India) The Income Tax Officer Pvt. Ltd. Ward - 2(5), Trivandrum Tc-4/2554(3), Indraprastham Vs. Pattom P.O. Kowdiar Road Trivandrum 695004 [Pan: Aabcl7856M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R

Section 2(22)(e)

definition, even the receipt of advance by the appellant company would attract deeming provision, due to the common managing director as he was beneficial owner of shares in M/s Nikunjam Constructions, and he had substantial interest in the appellant company. Thus, even though the appellant was not a shareholder ... 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

Sunil Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, the Appeal of the appellant stands partly allowed with no orders as to cost

ITA 1005/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 148Section 44

conjectures ad suspicion. The department has no material to show that the assessee was the owner of the land or that the assessee was beneficial owner of the entire sale proceed of the plot The Id AO has not made any inquiry from the witnesses who signed as witness ... suspicion. Whereas the department has no material to show that the appellant was the owner of the land or that the assessee was beneficial owner of the entire sale proceeds of the plot in question. The AO had not made any enquiry from the witnesses who signed as witnesses

Income Tax Officer-16(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ms. Shabnam Laiq Ahmed Khan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3849/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Savant, Sr. DR

Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69

during the FY 2017-18. The assessee further submitted that her father being 90 years old added his children including the assessee as beneficial owners at the time of registration of the property and that the assessee has not invested any money towards purchase of the property. The assessee submitted

Mr Colathur N. Ram, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 34(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of what we have observed hereinabove

ITA 1464/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54

legal consequences of purchase of the new asset by assessee in the name of his son is to constitute his son as the beneficial owner of the new Mr. Colathur N. Ram asset. The assessee has, therefore, not made the investment in this name. Therefore, he has rendered himself liable ... assessee has not made any such claim. In the affidavit filed before the Assessing Officer he had admitted that his son is the beneficial owner of the property and the investment was made in his name in view of the fact that he is 86 years old and that

ACIT 23-1, Mumbai vs. Milestone Real Estate Fund, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Smiti Samant, Shri H.M

Section 1Section 10Section 115USection 143(3)Section 147

invested in any venture capital undertaking in which its director or a substantial shareholder (being a (AYs: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) beneficial owner of equity shares exceeding ten per cent of its equity share capital) holds, either individually or collectively, equity shares in excess of fifteen per cent

ACIT-231, Mumbai vs. Milestone Real Estate Fund, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 368/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Smiti Samant, Shri H.M

Section 1Section 10Section 115USection 143(3)Section 147

ACIT, Piramal Chambers vs. Milestone Real Estate Fund, Mumbai

ITA 194/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Section 10Section 10(35)Section 115USection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

venture capital undertaking; and (iii) it has not invested in any venture cital undertaking in which its director or a substantial shareholder (being a beneficial owner of equity shares exceeding ten per cent of its equity share capital) holds, either individually or collectively, equity shares in excess of fifteen

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. DDIT(It)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1253/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am M/S. Shell International Petroleum Dy. Director Of Income Tax Company Limited (International Taxation)-2(1) C/O. Bsr & Co. Llp, 1St Floor, Room No. 120, Scindia House, Vs. Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Ballard Estate, N.M. Road, Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mumbai-400 038 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 011 Pan/Gir No. Aaics 0357 B (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J. D. Mistry/ Madhur Agarwal/Ms. Reema Grewal Respondent By : Smt. Shaileja Rai Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry/For Respondent: Smt. Shaileja Rai

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 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 Information Technologies International Bv, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumba

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4711/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrishell Information V/S. Dcit (International Tax)- Technology International बनाम 4(2)(1), Bv 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, C/O. Bsr & Co. Llp, Air India Building, 2Nd Floor, Lodha Excelus, Nariman Point, Apollo Mills Compound, Mumbai-400021 N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai-400011 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics9091A Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Shaileja Rai

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 2(24)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

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