← All Phrases

“beneficial ownership test”

International TaxDTAADTAA7 judgments

Judgments citing beneficial ownership test

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. The Reliance Motor Company Ltd., Chennai

Appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 404/CHNY/2024[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2024AY 1999-00

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.404/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. The Reliance Motor Company Ltd, Corporate Ward 3(1) 761, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai 600 002. [Pan: Aaact 1230A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. M. Karthikeyan, Irs, Addl Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate & Shri. S. Nagarajan, C.A. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karthikeyan, IRS, Addl CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

voting rights in the assessee company. The ld.counsel stated that both the sections 2(22)(e) & 2(32) of the Act uses the beneficial ownership tests only. None of the shareholders who beneficially hold more than 10% shares carrying voting rights in the lending company. The assessee before

Ohm Juniper Longterm Fund Limited, Mauritius vs. DCIT Intl. Taxation -2(2)(2), New Delhi

ITA 2722/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Ohm Juniper Longterm Vs. Dcit, Fund Ltd, International Taxation- 5Th Floor, Ebene Esplanade, 2(22)(2), 24 Cybercity, Ebene, New Delhi Mauritius (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aacco2383D

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 234CSection 90(2)

that control and management of the appellate is outside Mauritius M/s. OHM Juniper Longterm Fund Ltd 1.2 The learned DCIT's application of beneficial ownership test to Article 13 of India-Mauritius Tax Treaty is concluded that the appellant does not have the requisite beneficial ownership in the capital gains

Wild West Domains, Llc, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Tax., New Delhi

ITA 1774/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1774/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Wild West Domains, Llc Acit, Go Daddy India Domains & Hosting Vs. Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Services Private Limited, First Floor, Taxation, 01A167, Wework Bristol Chowk, Civic Centre, Platina Tower, Mg Road, Sector-28, Minto Road, Gurgaon, Haryana. Newdelhi. Pan No.Aabcw2372H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234ASection 234DSection 244ASection 274Section 9

case of dividends, interest, royalties and FTS wherein the benefits of the treaty are contingent on the claimant passing the beneficial ownership test. As can be reasonably ascertained, a transparent entity inherently lacks beneficial ownership of any type of income. Accordingly, such an entity cannot be considered eligible

Sapein Funds Ltd., Mauritius vs. CIT (International Taxation) Delhi-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 976/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

made to an intermediary, such as an agent or nominee interposed between 13 Sapein Funds Ltd. the beneficiary and the payer. However, beneficial ownership test has limitation to intermediate companies as companies are legal owners of the income and they are under no obligation to pass on the income

Thr Infrastructure Pte Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Cir.-3(1)(1), Intl Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/DEL/2022[201-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

legalistic view of companies, and of the meaning of "ownership", it seems that foreign courts decided that they were unable to apply the beneficial ownership test literally. As a result, in order to prevent residents of non-contracting states from obtaining treaty benefits by means of the interposition of conduit ... companies, foreign courts adopted surrogate tests in place of the literal beneficial ownership test. These surrogate tests focus not on ownership of income by the company in question but on some other factual matter such as "dominion". (b) The test of dominion is a surrogate form of reasoning that foreign

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

concluded that “there was ultimately only limited support for inserting beneficial ownership in article 13”. It would thus seem possible that reading a beneficial ownership test, when such a test is not embedded in the treaty provision itself, is rather than a permissible interpretation of the treaty provisions, a rewriting

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

concluded that “there was ultimately only limited support for inserting beneficial ownership in article 13”. It would thus seem possible that reading a beneficial ownership test, when such a test is not embedded in the treaty provision itself, is rather than a permissible interpretation of the treaty provisions, a rewriting