“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

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6993/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 90

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 (It) 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Marubeni Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection appeal is allowed

ITA 11/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)

taxed in the Contracting State in which it arises, and according to the laws of that Contracting 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. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions ... premiums and prizes attaching to such securities, bonds or debentures. 6. The provisions of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 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

DCIT (It) 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Marubeni Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 10/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Us Is A Company Incorporated In & Fiscally Domiciled In, The Republic Of Japan. It Has Various Streams Of Income From Its India Operations- Income From Its Permanent Establishment In India (Rs 8,47,64,383), Income Earned From India As Fees From Technical Services (Rs 31,76,15,635), Income From Shipping Business (Rs 1,09,53,179) And

Section 143(3)

Suncap Commodities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4953/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Suncap Commodities Private The Dy. Commissioner Of Limited Income-Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), 302, 3Rd Floor, Kumar Plaza, 540, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Kalina Kurla Road, Near Vs. Bhavan, Mk Road, Kalina Masid, Santacruz Mumbai-400 020 (East), Mumbai-400 029 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccn2950K

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT DR

Section 63Section 68

thousand five hundred five Only) to be paid by the Assignee to the Assignor (which the Assignor hereby agrees and acknowledges), the Assignor as beneficial owner of the Loan hereby assigns and transfers to the Assignee, the Assigned Loan due and owing to the Assignor along with the rights, interest

M/S. Devanam Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2644/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR

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

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

Zeeshan Azizmohmed Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 4(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1108/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 68

Blackstone Fp Capital Partners Mauritius V Ltd., Mauritius vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation) Circle-1(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 981/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 154

Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of AB Mauritius In Re [(2018) 90 taxmann.com 182 (AAR)]. It was thus held that the beneficial owner of the shares, on alienation of which the long term capital gains in question have arisen, is not the assessee, and the benefit of article ... benefit of DTAA with Mauritius. [Emphasis, by underlining, supplied by us] 7. Clearly, therefore, the Assessing Officer proceeded on the basis that since beneficial owner of the capital gains in question is an entity based outside Mauritius, the assessee is not entitled to the treaty protection in respect of capital

Blackstone Fp Capital Partners Mauritius V Ltd., Mauritius vs. DCIT Intl Tax Cir.1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1725/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 154

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1073/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

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 ... 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

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1071/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1070/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1069/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1066/MUM/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

M/S. Shell Information Technology International B.V., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1245/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT–DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2(24)Section 234B

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

The Joint Lessees of Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ITO 20 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the assessee appeal is allowed

ITA 2797/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Joint Lessees Of Vs. Ito – 20(2)(1), Industrial Estate, Piramal Chambers, 1St Floor, Estate Bldg Ii Floor,Lalbaug, Lalbaug Industrial Mumbai – 400012 Estate, Dr B.A. Road, Mumbai – 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaaj7202Q Appellant .. Respondent Ito – 20(2)(1) Vs. The Joint Lessees Of Piramal Chambers, Industrial Estate, Ii Floor,Lalbaug, 1St Floor, Estate Bldg Mumbai – 400012 Lalbaug Industrial Estate, Dr B.A.Road, Mumbai – 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaaj7202Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant /Respondent By Shri G.P Mehta.Ar : Respondent/Appellant By Shri T. Shankar.Dr : Date Of Hearing 11.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153Section 24(1)(a)Section 50C

addition of Rs 13,39,433/- in the hands of the appellant, inasmuch as , the appellant was neither a legal owner nor a beneficial owner of the leased properties. The reasons assigned for the impugned additions are wrong and contrary to accepted factual position. 8. The learned lower authorities have ... hands of the appellant even though the learned CIT(A), has categorically held that the appellant was neither a legal owner nor a beneficial owner of the leasehold property. Thus any income accruing or arising in relation to said properties could not have been taxed in the hands

Income Tax Officer 20(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mr.Khalid Mustafa Vasaiwala, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4259/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 68

company, he noticed that the assessee is holding 1/6% of shares in it. Therefore, according to the Assessing Officer, assessee is a beneficial owner of shares carrying not less than 10% of voting power in the company (M/s HDPL). The Assessing Officer called for the return of M/s HDPL

Rekha A Barot, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 9 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 473/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blerekha A. Barot V. Dcit – 9(2)(1) 1, Ground Floor Room No. 659, 6Th Floor Bharat Corporate Avenue Income Tax Near Versova Police Station Mumbai - 400020 D.N. Nagar, Andheri (W) Mumbai - 400053 Pan: Aenpb5677H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dalpat Shah Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Dalpat ShahFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

advance paid were enjoyed by the assessee or indirectly benefit was enjoyed by the assessee in these transactions. Even though assessee is a most beneficial owner however nothing was brought on record to show that assessee is indirectly enjoyed 6 Rekha A. Barot the benefit out of these transactions. Therefore

M/S Belgacom International Carrier Services Sa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1) International Taxation, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2884/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Belgacom The Deputy International Carrier Commissioner Of Services Sa, Income Tax, Rue Lebeau 4, Circle -1(1), 1000 Brussels, International Taxation, Vs. Belgium. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Assessee By Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr & Revenue By Smt. Vandana Sagar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Non Resident Assessee Against Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By Dcit (It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of The Learned Dcit, Circle - 1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru ('A0'), Read With The Order Of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp*), Bengaluru, The Assessee Begs To Prefer The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds: 1. The Learned Ao Erred In Exercising, Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act In The Case Of The Appellant. 2. The Lower Authorities Erred In Holding That A Sum Of Rs. 6,87,13,119/- Received By The Appellant From Its Customer In India Is In The Nature Of 'Royalty' Within The Meaning Of Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act & Accordingly Taxable In India Under The It Act.

For Respondent: Shri V. Sridharan, Senior

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

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 ... nature, including the provision of services of technical or other personnel. 4. 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 Parthiv Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4505/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amar Jit Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Parthiv Enterprises, Ito-17(2)(5), 83 Ramesh Bhuvan Nakhoda Room No.123-A, 1St Floor, Street, Vs. Pydhonie, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 003 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaefp8201A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Sr. A.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2022 O R D E R Per Amar Jit Singh: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal Against The Order Dated 11.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)] For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing The Interest Free Loans Of Rs.3,35,23,178/- Out Of Rs.12,19,54,637/- & Thereby Erred In Treating The Same As Loans Taken For Non-Business Purposes. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing & Adding The Proportionate Interest Paid Of Rs.22,24,357/- Out Of The Total Interest Paid Of Rs.80,92,036/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee & Thereby Added The Same To The Total Income Of The Assessee & Thereby Erred In Treating The Same For Non Business Purpose. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of The Genuine Loan Received From The Mis K.C. Kapadia & Sons(P) Ltd Of Rs.39,34,639/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee & Thereby Erred In Treating The Same For Non-Business Purpose.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, Sr. A.R

Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

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