Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The case pertains to a provisional attachment order issued u/s 24(4) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, involving a benami transaction. The key points are: The property was purchased before the 2016 amendment, but the benamidar held it even after the amendment. The amending Act's definition of "benami transaction" was not considered by the Adjudicating Authority. The company in whose name the property was purchased lacked the financial capacity to pay the consideration of Rs. 1 crore. Another company, whose ITR reflected the property's address, was found to be holding the property in the name of the first company. Despite not contesting the factual issues, the Appellate Tribunal found reasons to interfere with the impugned order, likely due to the applicability of the amended Act's provisions and the evidence suggesting a benami transaction.
The case pertains to a provisional attachment order issued u/s 24(4) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, involving a benami transaction. The key points are: The property was purchased before the 2016 amendment, but the benamidar held it even after the amendment. The amending Act's definition of "benami transaction" was not considered by the Adjudicating Authority. The company in whose name the property was purchased lacked the financial capacity to pay the consideration of Rs. 1 crore. Another company, whose ITR reflected the property's address, was found to be holding the property in the name of the first company. Despite not contesting the factual issues, the Appellate Tribunal found reasons to interfere with the impugned order, likely due to the applicability of the amended Act's provisions and the evidence suggesting a benami transaction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
