← 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

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1139/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115OSection 237

benefit of Article-10 is not available to the domestic company. In the absence of any obligation towards payment of taxation upon the beneficial owner of the dividend, the benefit of treaty in terms of provisions of Article-10 is not triggered at all. The Ld CIT-DR also pleaded

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1138/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115OSection 237

benefit of Article-10 is not available to the domestic company. In the absence of any obligation towards payment of taxation upon the beneficial owner of the dividend, the benefit of treaty in terms of provisions of Article-10 is not triggered at all. The Ld CIT-DR also pleaded

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1137/DEL/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115OSection 237

benefit of Article-10 is not available to the domestic company. In the absence of any obligation towards payment of taxation upon the beneficial owner of the dividend, the benefit of treaty in terms of provisions of Article-10 is not triggered at all. The Ld CIT-DR also pleaded

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1136/DEL/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115OSection 237

benefit of Article-10 is not available to the domestic company. In the absence of any obligation towards payment of taxation upon the beneficial owner of the dividend, the benefit of treaty in terms of provisions of Article-10 is not triggered at all. The Ld CIT-DR also pleaded

India Property (Mauritius) Company II, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 2(1)(1), New Delhi

ITA 1020/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 90(2)

without any commercial substance. Tax Department, in such a situation, notwithstanding the fact that the Mauritian company is required to. be treated as a beneficial owner of the shares under Circular No 789 and the Treaty is entitled, to look at the entire transaction of sale as a whole ... Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. These investments were held as capital assets in its own right and the Appellant was the sole legal and beneficial owner of the shares. Hence, the shares held by the Appellant were in its own name - legally and beneficially. Further, the economic substance

Nikesh Arora, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Gurgon

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1008/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2

USA/Singapore entities merely held the shares in their names. However, they could not have alienated the shares to others. Therefore, the assessee, being the beneficial owner of the shares, should be construed to have held the capital asset from 29th December, 2014 till the date of its transfer, which exceeds

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Elitecore Technologies Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1728/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1728/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Dy.Cit Elitecore Technologies Pvt.Ltd. Circle-2(1)(1) बनाम/ (Now Merged With Sterlite Ahmedabad Technolgies Limited) V/S. 904, Silicon Tower, B/H. Pariseema Building Off. C.G. Road Ahmedabad, Gujarat-380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaace 6815G (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue As Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-10, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”], Dated 04/09/2019, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Dcit Vs. Elitecore Technologies Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 92C

include payments for services mentioned in Article 15 of this Agreement. (5) The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply if the beneficial owner of the royalties or fees for technical services, being a resident of a Contracting State, carries on business in the other Contracting State

M/S Regen Renewable Energy Generation Global Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle - 2 (1), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 685/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.684/Chny/2022 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.685/Chny/2022 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Regen Renewable Energy Acit बनाम Generation Global Limited International Taxation New No.1, Pulla Avenue, / Vs. Circle-2(1), Chennai. Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcr-0685-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Ca) – Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Mrs. Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 115A(1)(b)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 234B

invalid. 2. For that the Learned Assessing Officer had erred in holding that the appellant is not the 'beneficial owner' of the royalty received as per Article 12 of the Indo-Cyprus DTAA and consequently denying the treaty benefits, thereby taxing the Royalty Income of the appellant ... 115A(1)(b) of the Act. 3. Without prejudice to the above, for that the Learned Assessing Officer, having held the appellant as the 'beneficial owner' of the royalty received, ought to have held the resident Holding company responsible for failure to deduct the due tax at source on payments

M/S Regen Renewable Energy Generation Global Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle - 2 (1), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 684/CHNY/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.684/Chny/2022 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.685/Chny/2022 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Regen Renewable Energy Acit बनाम Generation Global Limited International Taxation New No.1, Pulla Avenue, / Vs. Circle-2(1), Chennai. Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcr-0685-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Ca) – Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Mrs. Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 115A(1)(b)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 234B

invalid. 2. For that the Learned Assessing Officer had erred in holding that the appellant is not the 'beneficial owner' of the royalty received as per Article 12 of the Indo-Cyprus DTAA and consequently denying the treaty benefits, thereby taxing the Royalty Income of the appellant ... 115A(1)(b) of the Act. 3. Without prejudice to the above, for that the Learned Assessing Officer, having held the appellant as the 'beneficial owner' of the royalty received, ought to have held the resident Holding company responsible for failure to deduct the due tax at source on payments

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -1(2)(1)Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Madhusudhan Babubhai Kocha, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 3516/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(32)

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 ... states as under: "(32) person who has a substantial interest in the company", in relation to a company, means 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, carrying

Mr. Shanmugam Ravi, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Assessement Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

ITA 951/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143(3)Section 234A

ITA No.951/Bang/2023 Mr. Shanmugam Ravi, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT

Agrawal Dilsukhbhai Ramanand, Palanpur vs. The ACIT, Circle, Palanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the assessing officer, with the aforesaid direction

ITA 701/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him. Therefore The Impugned Order Is Liable To Be Quashed In Toto.

Section 250

reflect the name of assessee’s I.T.A No. 701/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 4 Agrawal Dilsukhbhai Ramanand vs. ACIT client (i.e. so-called beneficial owner in these transactions) to prove the correctness and genuineness of these transactions. The agreement for sale and purchase on behalf of the client

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (Exemption ), Nagpur vs. M/S Maharshtra Live Stock Development Board, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 355/NAG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur13 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 11Section 12A

quantum of charges to be collected nor appellant board has right to recover said Al charges from Veterinary Hospitals. The appellant is not the beneficial owner of Al service charges and no portion of Al service charges deposited with the appellant board, could be used for the purpose other than

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 7760/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

France in 2011 under the Double Tax Avoidance Convention/ Agreement ("DTAC/DTAA") entered between India and France, which revealed that the Appellant- Assessee was beneficial owner of a bank account with HSBC Bank, London. 1.3. Further, in "Annexure E" to the said complaint, the Respondent has enclosed a letter dated

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 7759/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

France in 2011 under the Double Tax Avoidance Convention/ Agreement ("DTAC/DTAA") entered between India and France, which revealed that the Appellant- Assessee was beneficial owner of a bank account with HSBC Bank, London. 1.3. Further, in "Annexure E" to the said complaint, the Respondent has enclosed a letter dated

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 7758/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

France in 2011 under the Double Tax Avoidance Convention/ Agreement ("DTAC/DTAA") entered between India and France, which revealed that the Appellant- Assessee was beneficial owner of a bank account with HSBC Bank, London. 1.3. Further, in "Annexure E" to the said complaint, the Respondent has enclosed a letter dated

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 7757/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

France in 2011 under the Double Tax Avoidance Convention/ Agreement ("DTAC/DTAA") entered between India and France, which revealed that the Appellant- Assessee was beneficial owner of a bank account with HSBC Bank, London. 1.3. Further, in "Annexure E" to the said complaint, the Respondent has enclosed a letter dated

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 7756/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

France in 2011 under the Double Tax Avoidance Convention/ Agreement ("DTAC/DTAA") entered between India and France, which revealed that the Appellant- Assessee was beneficial owner of a bank account with HSBC Bank, London. 1.3. Further, in "Annexure E" to the said complaint, the Respondent has enclosed a letter dated

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 6769/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

France in 2011 under the Double Tax Avoidance Convention/ Agreement ("DTAC/DTAA") entered between India and France, which revealed that the Appellant- Assessee was beneficial owner of a bank account with HSBC Bank, London. 1.3. Further, in "Annexure E" to the said complaint, the Respondent has enclosed a letter dated

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 6767/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

France in 2011 under the Double Tax Avoidance Convention/ Agreement ("DTAC/DTAA") entered between India and France, which revealed that the Appellant- Assessee was beneficial owner of a bank account with HSBC Bank, London. 1.3. Further, in "Annexure E" to the said complaint, the Respondent has enclosed a letter dated