← 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

Mr. Amar Rahman, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

ITA 1352/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1352/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Amar Rahman Acit बनाम/ 547, Ideal Home Township Corporate Circle-1(1) 12Th Cross, Rajarajeswari Nagar Vs. Chennai. Mysore Road, Bengaluru-560 098. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadpr-7258-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. Quadir Hoseyn (Advocate) & Dr.L.Natarajan (Ca)- Ld.Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Quadir Hoseyn (Advocate) &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

supported the same by rendering a finding that in the share transfer agreement (STA), the assessee was mentioned as the sole and beneficial owner of the shares. There was no mention of M/s AS cargo in the agreement. If indeed the assessee was holding the shares in the fiduciary capacity ... name of the assessee. The claim of the assessee was that he was holding such shares in the fiduciary capacity for the beneficial owner i.e., M/s AS Cargo and LTCG corresponding to 10% of the shareholding had arisen in his own hands whereas the balance 90% had arisen

Miss Fatema Shoeb Hussain, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Nagpur

ITA 69/NAG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 69

case of Shabbir Hussain Taher Ali, a detailed Written Submission dated 05/11/2012 were filed explaining that he was the real, legal and beneficial owner of Maria Construction and not the assessee Smt. Fatema Shoeb, as alleged by the Assessing Officer. Shabbir Hussain, in the said Written Submission gave his history

Miss Fatema Shoeb Hussain, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Nagpur

ITA 68/NAG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 69

case of Shabbir Hussain Taher Ali, a detailed Written Submission dated 05/11/2012 were filed explaining that he was the real, legal and beneficial owner of Maria Construction and not the assessee Smt. Fatema Shoeb, as alleged by the Assessing Officer. Shabbir Hussain, in the said Written Submission gave his history

M/S. Fatema Shoeb Hussain, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Nagpur

ITA 67/NAG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 69

case of Shabbir Hussain Taher Ali, a detailed Written Submission dated 05/11/2012 were filed explaining that he was the real, legal and beneficial owner of Maria Construction and not the assessee Smt. Fatema Shoeb, as alleged by the Assessing Officer. Shabbir Hussain, in the said Written Submission gave his history

M/S. Fatema Shoeb Hussain, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Nagpur

ITA 66/NAG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 69

case of Shabbir Hussain Taher Ali, a detailed Written Submission dated 05/11/2012 were filed explaining that he was the real, legal and beneficial owner of Maria Construction and not the assessee Smt. Fatema Shoeb, as alleged by the Assessing Officer. Shabbir Hussain, in the said Written Submission gave his history

M/S. Fatema Shoeb Hussain, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Nagpur

ITA 65/NAG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 69

case of Shabbir Hussain Taher Ali, a detailed Written Submission dated 05/11/2012 were filed explaining that he was the real, legal and beneficial owner of Maria Construction and not the assessee Smt. Fatema Shoeb, as alleged by the Assessing Officer. Shabbir Hussain, in the said Written Submission gave his history

M/S. Fatema Shoeb Hussain, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Nagpur

ITA 64/NAG/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 69

case of Shabbir Hussain Taher Ali, a detailed Written Submission dated 05/11/2012 were filed explaining that he was the real, legal and beneficial owner of Maria Construction and not the assessee Smt. Fatema Shoeb, as alleged by the Assessing Officer. Shabbir Hussain, in the said Written Submission gave his history

Ashok Harilal Tanna, Kalyan vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3 Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 3131/MUM/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Brahme &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)

payment by a closely held company of any sum by way of advance or loan to a shareholder, being a person who is beneficial owner of shares holding not less than 10% of voting power or to a concern in which such shareholder is a member, shall be treated

Agarwal Sponge & Energy Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1110/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pranav Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(2)(e)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

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

DCIT, Cir-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Motech Software Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2295/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 69

France to the Government of India under the Exchange of Information under DTAA between India and France clearly indicate that the assessee, as beneficial owner, is holding unexplained investment/deposits in the bank accounts maintained with HSBC Bank, Geneva in the names of (i) Infrastructure Company Ltd, (ii) HRJ Holdings ... relied on this information for making the addition. 3. The CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee company is not a beneficiary or beneficial owner of the assets in the Bank accounts with HSBC Bank held by the foreign entities, including Aberdeen Enterprises, HRJ Holdings NV and Infrastructure Company

DCIT, Cir-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Motech Software Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2294/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, &For Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal &
Section 69

France to the Government of India under the Exchange of Information under DTAA between India and France clearly indicate that the assessee, as beneficial owner, is holding unexplained investment/deposits in the bank accounts maintained with HSBC Bank, Geneva in the names of (i) Infrastructure Company Ltd, (ii) HRJ Holdings ... relied on this information for making the addition. 3. The CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee company is not a beneficiary or beneficial owner of the assets in the Bank accounts with HSBC Bank held by the foreign entities, including Aberdeen Enterprises, HRJ Holdings NV and Infrastructure Company

Universal Tractor Holding Llc, Usa vs. DCIT, International Taxation Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2216/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Durgesh Shankar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Neorem, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 49

contracting state in which it 6 Universal Tractor Holding LLC arises and according to the loss of that state but if the beneficial owner of the interest is a resident of other contracting state, the tax so charges shall not exceed 10% of the gross amounts of the interest ... interest may also be taxed in the Contracting State in which it arises, and according to the laws of that State, but if the beneficial owner of the interest is a resident of the other Contracting State, the tax so charged shall not exceed: a) 10 per cent

Sri. Haris Kalandan Mohammed, Mangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 878/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234

United Fish Meal FZC was for the benefit of M/S. Mukka Sea Foods Industries Pvt. Ltd., who had to be regarded as the beneficial owner of the shares in M/S. United Fish Meal FZC and thus, no addition towards deemed dividend could be made in the hands of the appellant ... name of the Appellant ; (iii) The shares held by UFM was for the benefit of MSFI who has to be regarded as the beneficial owner of the shares in UFM and hence the addition of the deemed dividend cannot be made in the hands of the Appellant

Ernst and Young U.S. LLP, United States vs. ACIT, Circle International Tax 1(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3253/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 192

services may also be taxed in the Contracting State in which they arise and according to the laws of that State; but if the beneficial owner of the royalties or fees for included services is a resident of the other Contracting State, the tax so charged shall not exceed ... professional services as defined in Article 15 (Independent Personal Services). 6. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply if the beneficial owner of the royalties or fees for included services, being a resident of a Contracting State, carries on business in the other Contracting State, in which

Piaggio Vehicles Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 611/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Smt. Deepa Sanjay Hiray
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

which the company paying the dividends is a resident and according to the laws of that State, but if the recipient is the beneficial owner of the dividends, the tax so charged shall not exceed: (a) 15 per cent of the gross amount of' the dividends if the beneficial owner ... 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Naresh Jain, Kota

ITA 374/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 133A(3)(iii)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR श्री संदीप गोसाई, न्यायिक

Income Tax Officer, Kautilya Bhawan vs. Petroleum Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2694/MUM/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Nimesh Vora, A/RsFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT, D/R
Section 115BSection 160Section 161Section 161(1)Section 163Section 9

beneficially. The fiction is created as it was never the object or intention of the Act to charge tax upon others than the beneficial owner of the income. Thus it is implicit that the tax could be leviable upon and recoverable from the persons represented by the representative assessee

Akash Petroleum Pvt. Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 760/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Revisionary Order Dated 21-03-2024 Passed By Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

w.r.t. loans received from M/s Abhishek Caplease Private Limited in which the assessee holds and is the beneficial owner of the shares having 49.63% shareholding, and the said company M/s Abhishek Caplease Private Limited has accumulated profits to the tune of Rs. 26,22,208/-. It was submitted that

Shree Shiromani Project Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 106/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.106/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shree Shiromani Project Pvt. Ltd. ...……………………....………....Appellant C/O Advocate Amit Agarwal, 50D, Mukta Ram Babu Street, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700007. [Pan: Aabcv0376L] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 29, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order Dated 21St March, 2023 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant In Liminie Without Dealing With The Merits Of The Case & By Not Passing Order On The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Appellant Assessee Company Against The Impugned Assessment Order Dated 30.09.2021 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act

Section 147Section 250Section 68

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

Wild West Domains, Llc, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Tax., New Delhi

ITA 1774/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1774/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Wild West Domains, Llc Acit, Go Daddy India Domains & Hosting Vs. Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Services Private Limited, First Floor, Taxation, 01A167, Wework Bristol Chowk, Civic Centre, Platina Tower, Mg Road, Sector-28, Minto Road, Gurgaon, Haryana. Newdelhi. Pan No.Aabcw2372H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234ASection 234DSection 244ASection 274Section 9

I.T.A.No.1774/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE