“beneficial owner”

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Smt. Deval D Thakkar [Now Known As Smt Deval E Anthony], Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are 11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 968/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 974/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Dcit, Central Circle-6(4) बिधम/ Smt. Deval D. Thakkar (Now Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Known As Smt. Deval E Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Anthony) Point, Mumbai-400021. 12/22B, Acropolis, Malabar Hills, Mumbai-400006. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpt8999F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Dilip Thakkar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Dated 26.11.2019 For A.Y.1999-2000 & For Ay. 2004-05. 2. Both The Parties Agree That The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical, Therefore, We Take The Appeal Of The Assessee For Ay. 1999-2000 As The Lead Case & The Decision Of Which Will Be Followed For Ay. 2004-05. 3. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue For Ay. 1999-2000 Is As Under: -

Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessment mainly for the following reasons as under: - “Smt Deval E Anthony who is having account in HSBC as Beneficial owner/ beneficiary of Chhaganlal Suchak Family. It was claimed by the assessee that the corpus of the fund of Chhaganlal Suchak Family Trust is from ... Shri Chhaganlal Suchak. However, the same is made in the name of Shri Suryakant Suchak. Further the assessee Smt Deval E Anthony is the Beneficial owner/ Beneficiary of the Chhaganlal Suchak Family. However, she has not furnished the details of opening of account and income there from. Further, the assessee

ACIT Central Cir. 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Ajay Virendra Arora, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2149/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Ajay Virendra Acit-Cen.Circle – 6(4), Arora, R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air 6Th Floor, S14, Solitaire India Building, Nariman बिधम/ Corporate Park, Guru Point, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Hargovindji Marg, Chakala, Andheri(East), Mumbai-400 093 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Addpa6742R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Salil Mishra, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Jitendra Jain/ Shri Ravikant Pathak, Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.10.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 22.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 25.08.2021, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 153A R.W.S.

must be construed to mean those advances or loans, which a shareholder enjoys for simply on account of being a partner, who is the beneficial owner of shares, but if such loan or advance is given to such shareholder as a consequence of any further consideration, which is beneficial

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

Article 11(5) specifically provides that the provisions of Article 12(1),(2) and (3) will not come into play “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 ... charging provisions of Article 12(1) and (2), which deal with taxability of interest in the source state, will 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

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

Article 11(5) specifically provides that the provisions of Article 12(1),(2) and (3) will not come into play “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 ... charging provisions of Article 12(1) and (2), which deal with taxability of interest in the source state, will 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

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Jogia Properties Limited, Mumbai

In the result, for AY 2007-08, in case of Vedisa Properties

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Jogia Properties Limited, Mumbai

In the result, for AY 2007-08, in case of Vedisa Properties

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Vedisa Properties Limited, Mumbai

In the result, for AY 2007-08, in case of Vedisa Properties

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Vedisa Properties Limited, Mumbai

In the result, for AY 2007-08, in case of Vedisa Properties

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA

DCIT Intl Tax Cir-4(3) (2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Win on Shipping, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

M/S Sunshine Communication Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Sunshine Communication Asst. Cit, Central Circle-5(4), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor, Air 1St Floor, Capri, Anant Kanekar Vs. India Building, Nariman Point, Marg, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadcs 4276 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nimesh Thar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chetan M. Kacha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2022

ICICI Bank. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee the Assessing Officer, the assessee-company was neither was neither a registered owner nor a beneficial owner and therefore, he decl registered owner nor a beneficial owner and therefore, he decl registered owner nor a beneficial owner and therefore, he declined ... assessee, as reflected in the books of the payments made by the assessee, as reflected in the books of accounts, amo accounts, amounts to beneficial owner ship of the assessee and unts to beneficial owner ship of the assessee and eligibility to claim depreciation. In this regard we find support

Jet Freight Logistics Ltd, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

Bench: Us. We Find That The Order Is Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) During The Covid Pandemic Period & Accordingly, In View Of The Relaxation Granted By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court, We Are Inclined To Condone The Delay Of 85 Days In Filing Of Appeal By The Assessee. Accordingly, The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Adjudication.

been required or made, and not from the time of its registration. Accordingly, it was submitted by the assessee that it had become the beneficial owner of the property w.e.f. the date of agreement i.e.31/03/2017 itself and not from the date of Registration i.e. 06/04/2017. In view of these ... physical possession of the property even prior to the date of agreement as a licensor. Pursuant to entering the agreement the assessee became the beneficial owner of the said property. In this regard, we have no hesitation in placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court