“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

Corning Sas India Branch Office, Haryana vs. DCIT/ACIT-Int-Tax, Haryana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 528/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat Kul Bharat Kul Bharatkul Bharat Shri Shri Shri

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshresth, CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 270

taxed in the Contracting State in which it arises, and according to the laws of that State, but if the recipient is the beneficial owner of the interest, the tax so charged shall not exceed 10 per cent of the gross amount of the interest. ……………. 5. The provisions of paragraphs ... shall not apply if the beneficial owner of the interest, being a resident of a Contracting State, carries on business in the other Contracting State in which the interest arises, through a permanent establishment situated therein, or performs in that other Contracting State independent personal services from a fixed base

Sarva Capital Llc, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle International Tax 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2073/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nirbhay Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B.Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 112Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 270A

different countries. (iii) The TRC is not sufficient to establish the tax residency if the substance establishes otherwise. (iv) The assessee company is not beneficial owner of income as control and dominion of fund is not with the company. 3 Sarva Capital LLC (v) There is no commercial rationale ... sufficient to establish the tax residency if the substance establishes otherwise. 4. The assessee company is also not a beneficial owner of income as control and dominion of fund is not with the company. 5. There is no commercial rationale of establishment of assessee company in Mauritius as the commercial

ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3170/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usansal Properties & Vs. Acit, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Circle-2(2), 115, Ansal Bhawan, New Delhi 16, Kg Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca0006D Acit, Vs. Ansal Properties & Circle-2(2), Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kg Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca0006D Assessee By : Shri R S. Singhvi, Adv Shri Satyajeet Goel, Adv Revenue By: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 18/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri R S. Singhvi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer

Section 22Section 36(1)(va)Section 43C

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US

Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2549/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri R S. Singhvi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer

Section 22Section 36(1)(va)Section 43C

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US

M/S. Van-Oord India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 5(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1987/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Van Oord India Pvt. Ltd. 201, 2Nd Floor, Central Plaza, 166 Cst Road, Kalina, Raheja Towers, Opp. Sidbi, Mumbai-400 098 Pan: Aaach5430J ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 5(3) (2) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit Circle 5(3) (2) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Divesh Chawle, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Ld. DR

Section 114Section 250Section 28Section 92(1)

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 per cent. The first condition is that

Rugby Regency P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range-21, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 653/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 M/S. Rugby Regency P. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, 37-Ring Road, Range-21, Lajpat Nagar-Iv, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 024 Pan Aagcr5908K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhavi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 56(2)(viib)

revised Paper Book. The Ld. AR filed a brief summary of sequence of events to show that the assessee is the beneficial owner of the asset and hence depreciation should be allowed. He relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Smt. Sivakami

Bhagwant Education Foundation, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Exemtion 1(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 24(4)Section 26(3)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition), Rajasthan, Jaipur vide order dated 14.11.2018 has considered this property to be benami property and assessee as beneficial owner of the property. Therefore, income of assessee was computed as per the normal provisions and learned CIT(A) has sustained the same, for which

Deevik Garg, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle- 38(1), New Delhi

ITA 4318/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediadeevik Garg Vs. Acit E-1/75, Sec-07, Rohini, Circle – 38(1) New Delhi – 110 085 New Delhi Pan No. Adrpg 2815 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.01.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

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

addition confirmed by him needs to be deleted. 5. That Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in treating the appellant as beneficial owner of 40.58% shares of M/s Hanuman Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd registered in the name of appellant in the capacity of nominee of beneficial owner ... record and provisions of law. As such action of Ld. CIT(A) needs to be undone and appellant should not be treated as beneficial owner of 40.58% shares. 6. That Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming addition of Rs.1,11,02,416/- as deemed dividend

ITO Non Corporate Ward 1(2), Chennai vs. M/S Ivell Investments, Chennai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 637/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.637/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ito M/S. Iwell Investments बनाम/ No. 4, 2Nd Floor, Shriram House, Non-Corporate Ward-1(2), Chennai-34. Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Vs. Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfi-3235-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)- Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Sivaraman (Advocate)- Ld.AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

absence of Return of Income of Iwell Trust wherein as per the fourth proviso to section 139(1) a person who holds as a beneficial owner any asset located outside India or is a beneficiary of any asset located outside India is required to file return of income even

Coperion Gmbh, Foreign vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation, 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 2431/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 234A

taxed in the source state at a rate not exceeding 10% of the gross amount, if the recipient is the beneficial owner of such royalty and FTS. 9. Undoubtedly, the assessee, being a beneficial owner of royalty and FTS, has offered to tax the royalty and FTS on gross basis

DCIT, Chennai vs. Gemini Traze Rfid Private Limited, Chennai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 875/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.875/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit M/S.Gemini Traze Rfid Private Limited बनाम/ Vs. Corporate Circle-2(1), No.1, Dr.Ranga Road, Chennai-34. Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg-5226-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D.Hema Bhupal (Jcit)-Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri V.Veeraraghavan (Advocate)- Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri D.Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri V.Veeraraghavan (Advocate)- Ld.AR

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(31)

contemplates any payment made by a company by way of advance or loan to a shareholder, being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares holdingnot less than ten per cent of the voting power or to any concern in which such shareholder is a member or a partner

Dialog Axiata Plc, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2643/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 144CSection 147Section 191Section 195Section 5

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 technical services is a resident of the other Contracting State the tax so charged shall not exceed ... services, including the provision of services of technical or other personnel. 4. The provisions of paragraph 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

Comstar Mauritius Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (It) Mumbai-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1529/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Comstar Mauritius Limited Cit (It), Agarwal Vijay & Associates, 503, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, Jolly Bhavan, No.1, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, Lines, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcc1225Q

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Avoidance Agreement between India and Mauritius. c. Ld AO has neither asked for any holding structure of the assessee nor the details of ultimate beneficial owners, was enquired into. Comstar Mauritius Ltd; A.Y. 2018-19 d. Further, the learned Assessing Officer has not looked into the fact that audited financial ... company incorporated under the laws of Singapore. The assessee has categorically stated in the agreement that assessee is the legally and beneficial owner of the above share. It was also stated that assessee is owned as subsidiary of ComstarBVI . Sale consideration was received of ₹790,86,33,427/- on which

Provestment Securities P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 20(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2136/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 68

British Virgin Island with address at Mill Mall, Wickhams Cay-1, Suite 6, VG- Road Town, Tortola. It was also informed that the beneficial owner of the said account is Sh. Sameer Thapar who incidentally is also the director of the assessee company. The above information was duly perused ... unveiling the layers of transactions, it was found that the funds were received in the Mauritius based company from Musk Holding Limited whose beneficial owner is Sh. Sameer Thapar who is the director of the assessee company. Therefore, the AO had reason to believe that this clearly is a case

Macro Township Pvt Ltd, 288-289 Mahaveer Nagar Durgapura Jaipur vs. DCIT CC -2 Jaipur, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 399/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 153CSection 250Section 69

made a detailed analysis of the facts and evidence found at the time of search in the group of cases, while establishing that actual beneficial owner of the land is not Sh. Pooran Mal Kanwat. The relevant fact is M/s. Macro Township Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. mentioned in AO's assessment ... which he admitted in the statement also. Therefore, it is beyond doubt that Sh. Pooran Mal Kanwat is only a name lender and actual beneficial owner of the land are M/s Macro Township Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd. 6.4 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant

Macro Township Pvt Ltd, 288-289 Mahaveer Nagar Durgapura Jaipur vs. DCIT CC-2 Jaipur, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 398/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 153CSection 250Section 69

Macro Township Pvt Ltd, 288-289 Mahaveer Nagar Durgapura Jaipur vs. DCIT CC -2 Jaipur, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 397/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 153CSection 250Section 69

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Intl Tax Circle 3(2) (1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1758/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. S.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

ITA 38/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43C

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 ... loans given to the directors of the company holding more than 10% of share capital in the company being the person who is beneficial owner of shares holding not less than 10% of the voting power, that in the present case the amounts given the directors are for the business

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. S.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

ITA 35/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43C