Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9201 to 9220 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
AT dismissed the appeals and upheld the provisional attachment of the impugned property, finding a benami transaction under Section 2(9)(A). The Tribunal held that (1) consideration was transferred from the beneficial owner to the benamidar's account, (2) title was recorded in the benamidar, and (3) the acquisition was for the future benefit of the beneficial owner, satisfying all limbs of the statutory definition. Alleged loan evidence and a collaboration agreement were absent or unsubstantiated, and the belated induction of the benamidar's son into a partnership was seen as contrived. The AT found no error in the respondents' actions and affirmed the attachment.
AT dismissed the appeals and upheld the provisional attachment of the impugned property, finding a benami transaction under Section 2(9)(A). The Tribunal held that (1) consideration was transferred from the beneficial owner to the benamidar's account, (2) title was recorded in the benamidar, and (3) the acquisition was for the future benefit of the beneficial owner, satisfying all limbs of the statutory definition. Alleged loan evidence and a collaboration agreement were absent or unsubstantiated, and the belated induction of the benamidar's son into a partnership was seen as contrived. The AT found no error in the respondents' actions and affirmed the attachment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
