PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The AT dismissed the appeals, upholding the Adjudicating...
Appeals dismissed; benami transaction upheld as appellant failed to explain Rs.4.13 crore construction spending and ₹1.1 crore consideration s.24(1) s.63
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The AT dismissed the appeals, upholding the Adjudicating Authority's finding of a benami transaction. The Tribunal concluded the Respondent established a prima facie case and discharged the onus, shifting evidentiary burden to the Appellant who failed to satisfactorily account for source of funds or legitimate consideration; expenditure of Rs. 4.13 crore on construction while legal title remained with the beneficial owner and minimal consideration post-execution (₹1.1 crore) supported the benami finding. The Tribunal held the Provisional Attachment Order valid: notice under s.24(1) was issued, prior approval of the Approving Authority was obtained (albeit before notice), and any procedural defect was saved by s.63, rendering the appeals devoid of merit.
The AT dismissed the appeals, upholding the Adjudicating Authority's finding of a benami transaction. The Tribunal concluded the Respondent established a prima facie case and discharged the onus, shifting evidentiary burden to the Appellant who failed to satisfactorily account for source of funds or legitimate consideration; expenditure of Rs. 4.13 crore on construction while legal title remained with the beneficial owner and minimal consideration post-execution (₹1.1 crore) supported the benami finding. The Tribunal held the Provisional Attachment Order valid: notice under s.24(1) was issued, prior approval of the Approving Authority was obtained (albeit before notice), and any procedural defect was saved by s.63, rendering the appeals devoid of merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.