Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court dismisses Writ Petitions, directs adjudication under PBPT Act Sections 25 & 26. Participation and compliance stressed.</h1> <h3>M/s. Marg Realities Limited (Now Known as M/s. Digital Accelerator Limited) Represented by its Authorised signatory Mr. R.B. Srinivasan Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition), The Adjudicating Authority</h3> M/s. Marg Realities Limited (Now Known as M/s. Digital Accelerator Limited) Represented by its Authorised signatory Mr. R.B. Srinivasan Versus The Deputy ... Issues Involved:1. Whether the transactions in question qualify as benami transactions under the Prohibition of the Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPT Act).2. Whether the procedural requirements under Section 24 of the PBPT Act were followed by the respondents.3. Whether the petitioners were given an adequate opportunity to present their case and cross-examine witnesses.4. The impact of demonetization on the transactions and whether the consideration involved was valid.5. The maintainability of the Writ Petitions.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the transactions in question qualify as benami transactions under the PBPT Act:The petitioners argued that the transactions were purely commercial and did not fall under the definition of benami transactions as per Section 2(9) of the PBPT Act. They contended that the properties were developed and owned by them, and the transactions were conducted through normal banking channels. The respondents, however, concluded that the transactions were benami, with the petitioners holding properties as benamidars for VKS. The court noted that the term 'benami transaction' includes any arrangement where the property is held by one person but the consideration is provided by another, and the property is held for the benefit of the person who provided the consideration. The court emphasized that the burden of proving that the transactions were benami lies with the respondents, and this needs to be established during the adjudication process.2. Whether the procedural requirements under Section 24 of the PBPT Act were followed by the respondents:The court examined whether the respondents followed the procedural requirements under Section 24, which involves issuing a notice to show cause, provisional attachment of the property, and making inquiries. The respondents argued that sufficient materials were gathered during the search, leading to a prima facie satisfaction that the transactions were benami. The court held that the enquiry under Section 24 is preliminary and based on prima facie reasons. The court found that the respondents had reasons to justify the invocation of Section 24 and that the petitioners would have the opportunity to present their case during the adjudication process.3. Whether the petitioners were given an adequate opportunity to present their case and cross-examine witnesses:The petitioners claimed that they were not given an adequate opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present their case. The respondents countered that such opportunities would be provided during the adjudication process. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Andaman Timber Industries, which held that denial of cross-examination would result in a violation of natural justice. The court concluded that the petitioners could request cross-examination during the adjudication process, and such requests should be considered by the respondents in accordance with the law.4. The impact of demonetization on the transactions and whether the consideration involved was valid:The petitioners argued that the consideration involved in the transactions was paid in demonetized currency, which ceased to be legal tender, and thus did not amount to valid consideration under the PBPT Act. The court acknowledged that demonetized currency does not constitute legal tender and that the mode of payment and the actual amount transacted are factual questions that need to be verified during the adjudication process. The court left this question open for determination by the authorities during adjudication.5. The maintainability of the Writ Petitions:The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petitions, arguing that the petitioners should cooperate with the ongoing proceedings. The court held that the Writ Petitions were premature and directed the petitioners to participate in the adjudication process under Sections 25 and 26 of the PBPT Act. The court dismissed the Writ Petitions and directed the respondents to proceed with adjudication, ensuring that all material relied upon is provided to the petitioners and that the petitioners are given a full opportunity to present their case.Conclusion:The court dismissed the Writ Petitions, directing the respondents to proceed with adjudication under Sections 25 and 26 of the PBPT Act. The petitioners were instructed to participate in the adjudication process, where they would be given the opportunity to present their case and request cross-examination. The court emphasized the need for strict compliance with the procedural requirements of the PBPT Act and left certain factual questions, such as the impact of demonetization, to be determined during the adjudication process.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found