← 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

Sathyanarayana Saka, Someswaram vs. ITO, NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 589/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 588 & 589/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 & 2015-16) Satyanarayana Saka, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Someswaram. Kakinada. Pan: Hlbps2932A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Kss Sarma, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 02/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 15/07/2025 Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 28/09/2022 For Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16. As The Common Issue Is Involved In The Captioned Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Satyanarayana Saka Vs. Ito

For Appellant: Shri KSS Sarma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Satyanarayana Saka. The A.O. made additions towards cash deposit in the bank account of third person on the ground that, the assessee is the beneficial owner of the cash deposits into bank account on a substantive basis, when the assessee is unable to explain and counter the statement given

Sathyanarayana Saka, Someswaram vs. ITO, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 588/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 588 & 589/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 & 2015-16) Satyanarayana Saka, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Someswaram. Kakinada. Pan: Hlbps2932A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Kss Sarma, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 02/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 15/07/2025 Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 28/09/2022 For Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16. As The Common Issue Is Involved In The Captioned Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Satyanarayana Saka Vs. Ito

For Appellant: Shri KSS Sarma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Satyanarayana Saka. The A.O. made additions towards cash deposit in the bank account of third person on the ground that, the assessee is the beneficial owner of the cash deposits into bank account on a substantive basis, when the assessee is unable to explain and counter the statement given