← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Singhvi Lickmi Chand, Vellore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue

ITA 971/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.643, 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2025 िनधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Singvi Lickmi Chand, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.3, Kasi Chetty Street, Vs. Income Tax, Ambur – 635 803. Central Circle-3(3), Pan: Aaapl 6736A Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 153ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Singhvi Lickmi Chand, Vellore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue

ITA 970/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.643, 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2025 िनधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Singvi Lickmi Chand, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.3, Kasi Chetty Street, Vs. Income Tax, Ambur – 635 803. Central Circle-3(3), Pan: Aaapl 6736A Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 153ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Singhvi Lickmi Chand, Vellore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue

ITA 969/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.643, 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2025 िनधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Singvi Lickmi Chand, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.3, Kasi Chetty Street, Vs. Income Tax, Ambur – 635 803. Central Circle-3(3), Pan: Aaapl 6736A Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 153ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Singhvi Lickmi Chand, Vellore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue

ITA 968/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.643, 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2025 िनधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Singvi Lickmi Chand, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.3, Kasi Chetty Street, Vs. Income Tax, Ambur – 635 803. Central Circle-3(3), Pan: Aaapl 6736A Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 153ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Singhvi Lickmi Chand, Ambur vs. DCIT Central Circle 3(3), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue

ITA 647/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.643, 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2025 िनधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Singvi Lickmi Chand, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.3, Kasi Chetty Street, Vs. Income Tax, Ambur – 635 803. Central Circle-3(3), Pan: Aaapl 6736A Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 153ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand, Ambur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue

ITA 646/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.643, 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2025 िनधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Singvi Lickmi Chand, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.3, Kasi Chetty Street, Vs. Income Tax, Ambur – 635 803. Central Circle-3(3), Pan: Aaapl 6736A Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 153ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand, Ambur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue

ITA 645/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.643, 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2025 िनधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Singvi Lickmi Chand, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.3, Kasi Chetty Street, Vs. Income Tax, Ambur – 635 803. Central Circle-3(3), Pan: Aaapl 6736A Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 153ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand, Ambur vs. DCIT, Central Circle.3(2), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue

ITA 644/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.643, 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2025 िनधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Singvi Lickmi Chand, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.3, Kasi Chetty Street, Vs. Income Tax, Ambur – 635 803. Central Circle-3(3), Pan: Aaapl 6736A Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 153ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand, Ambur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue

ITA 643/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.643, 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2025 िनधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Singvi Lickmi Chand, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.3, Kasi Chetty Street, Vs. Income Tax, Ambur – 635 803. Central Circle-3(3), Pan: Aaapl 6736A Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 153ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Viraj Software Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-26(4), Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1084/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Viraj Software Pvt. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward-26(4), 28, Raja Garden, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaccv5229M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

source of funds in some other layer of companies operating at another level. The movement of funds is not transparent and the ultimate beneficial owners of this investment in the appellant company are not even known, leave aside there as on for their making such a risky investment, at unjustified

Addpol Chemspecialities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1) Vadodra, Vadodra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1641/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

which the public substantially interested by any sum by way of advance or loan to a shareholder being a person who is a beneficial owner of shares not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend whether with or without right to participate in profits holding not less than ... cannot be termed as dividend because the loan was to a sister concern and not to shareholder being a person is the beneficial owners of the shares. The decision of the Tribunal in case of Shri Dilip G Shah which has the same parties has categorically mentioned therein. The decision

Rajendra Sahu, Katni vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Katni

ITA 162/JAB/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Rajendra Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ram Manohar Lohiya Ward No. 4, Behind Katni Durga Hospital, Adarsh Colony, Katni Pan: Auvps4330A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr 1 Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 20.10.2023 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act On 27.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1) The Order Passed By The Ld Cit (A) Is Bad In Law & Facts, Void Ab Initio & Without Jurisdiction. (2) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Order, When Notice Issued U/S 148 Is Defective. There Is No Application Of Mind Of Ld Ao & Also Of Sanctioning Authority. (3) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Order, When Assessee Made Specific Request To Share Copies Of All The Statement Recorded By The Investigation Wing Regarding The Sale Of Properties. These Copies Were Not Given Inspite Of Using Them Against The Assessee. (4) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Order, When The Hon'Ble Tribunal For Benami Transactions Has Released The Property & Given Relief To Alleged Benamidar & Alleged Beneficial Owner. Copy Of Order Was Filed On Record. (5) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs 88,52,740/-U/S 69. 1 A.Y. 2013-14 Rajendra Sahu (6) The Appellant Reserves The Right To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR 1
Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 69

sustaining the order, when the hon'ble Tribunal for Benami transactions has released the property and given relief to alleged benamidar and alleged beneficial owner. Copy of order was filed on record. (5) The Ld CIT (A) erred in law and facts of the case in sustaining the addition

Mr Mukund Vallabhdas Thakker, Mumbai vs. Dycit. CC 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5904/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2008-09 Mr. Mukund Vallabhdas Deputy Commissioner Of Thakker, Income Tax, Ground Floor, Vs. Central Circle-4(2)(1), Persian Apartments, Aayakar Bhavan, 434, Vp Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400058. Pan : Aaapt3952A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Virtually Appeared) For Revenue : Shri Anurag Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Delhi, Dated 27-08-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09, Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Sustenance Of Addition Of Rs. 9,73,306/- U/S. 2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟).

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

name of the assessee and the payment for the same was made by Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd., wherein the assessee is a beneficial owner holding 11.95% of shares of the said company. As per the AO, the purchase of car in the name of the assessee amounts to advancing ... 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Lurgi India International Services Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed as above

ITA 5826/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: allowing carry forward of losses.”

Section 142(1)Section 37Section 79

Delhi High Court had held that “There is nothing to show that there was any agreement or arrangement that the beneficial owner of such shares would be the holding company, Yum USA. The question of ‘piercing the veil’ at the instance of Yum Indian does not arise

Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand, Ambur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 642/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.638, 639, 640, 641 & 642/Chny/2025 िनधा?रण वष? /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Singvi Lickmi Chand, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.3, Kasi Chetty Street, Vs. Income Tax, Ambur – 635 803. Central Circle-3(3), Pan: Aaapl 6736A Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 153ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand, Ambur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 641/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.638, 639, 640, 641 & 642/Chny/2025 िनधा?रण वष? /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Singvi Lickmi Chand, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.3, Kasi Chetty Street, Vs. Income Tax, Ambur – 635 803. Central Circle-3(3), Pan: Aaapl 6736A Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 153ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand, Ambur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 640/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.638, 639, 640, 641 & 642/Chny/2025 िनधा?रण वष? /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Singvi Lickmi Chand, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.3, Kasi Chetty Street, Vs. Income Tax, Ambur – 635 803. Central Circle-3(3), Pan: Aaapl 6736A Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 153ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Shri Sighvi Lickmi Chand, Ambur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 639/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.638, 639, 640, 641 & 642/Chny/2025 िनधा?रण वष? /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Singvi Lickmi Chand, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.3, Kasi Chetty Street, Vs. Income Tax, Ambur – 635 803. Central Circle-3(3), Pan: Aaapl 6736A Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 153ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand, Ambur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 638/CHNY/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.638, 639, 640, 641 & 642/Chny/2025 िनधा?रण वष? /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Singvi Lickmi Chand, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.3, Kasi Chetty Street, Vs. Income Tax, Ambur – 635 803. Central Circle-3(3), Pan: Aaapl 6736A Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 153ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Florida Retirement System, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation -2(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 1866/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115ASection 144Section 144CSection 234Section 234BSection 270ASection 70Section 70(2)

such tax, having been initially recorded in the name of the depository bank, does not automatically flow into the Form 26AS of the ultimate beneficial owner of the ADR or GDR. The assessee has set out, in some detail, the sustained efforts undertaken to have this position regularised under rule ... expressly mentioned that they shall not be able to assist with transfer of tax credit since they have no visibility into the ultimate beneficial owner information icici BANK LTD DB 2,46,779 26,948 1.79,73,198 19,62.672 Yet to hear 141-142 15 Florida Retirement System from