Revenue authority mandates using scheme-specific reversal procedures, not revising original entries, for instrument-based trade/customs benefits effec...
Transaction value under s.15(1) governs unrelated sales; valuation between related parties per Rule 28; consignment note required for unregistered rec...
Court Overturns Unfounded Provisional Attachment Order Under Benami Transactions Act Citing Unconstitutional Sections.
📋
Contents
Cases Cited
Referred In
Notifications
Circulars
Forms
Manuals
Acts
Rules & Regulations
Plus +
Source NTF
AI Summary
Similar
Note
Bookmark
Share
https://www.taxtmi.com/hi...
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
ExpandCollapse
Benami PropertyMay 2, 2024Case LawsHC
Benami Property Transactions - Real/original owner - provisional attachment order issued u/s 24(3) of the Benami Transactions Act, 1988 - The High Court found in favor of the petitioner, holding that the show cause notice and provisional attachment order lacked a sufficient basis. The court referenced a Supreme Court ruling declaring certain sections of the Act unconstitutional and inapplicable retrospectively. Since the purchase of the land preceded the amendment to the Act, the court ruled that no proceedings could be initiated by the department. - Further, the court criticized the department for relying solely on a contractor's statement without substantial evidence. It emphasized the lack of supporting material or questioning of the contractor's basis for the claim, deeming the proceedings initiated without sufficient grounds.
Benami Property Transactions - Real/original owner - provisional attachment order issued u/s 24(3) of the Benami Transactions Act, 1988 - The High Court found in favor of the petitioner, holding that the show cause notice and provisional attachment order lacked a sufficient basis. The court referenced a Supreme Court ruling declaring certain sections of the Act unconstitutional and inapplicable retrospectively. Since the purchase of the land preceded the amendment to the Act, the court ruled that no proceedings could be initiated by the department. - Further, the court criticized the department for relying solely on a contractor's statement without substantial evidence. It emphasized the lack of supporting material or questioning of the contractor's basis for the claim, deeming the proceedings initiated without sufficient grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick
reference only.