Managerial remuneration disallowance under s.40A(2)(b) challenged over alleged tax-avoidance; appellate decision restored deletion of addition for dir...
Classification of imported goods as electronic cigarette versus tobacco product reversed for lack of proof; order set aside for jurisdictional overrea...
Reversal of input tax credit in proportion to exempt supply: specificity of show-cause notice required; order set aside, fresh proceedings allowed wit...
Analysis of alleged benami transaction focusses on beneficial...
Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequences.
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
Analysis of alleged benami transaction focusses on beneficial ownership, source of consideration, and documentary versus circumstantial evidence. Tribunal applied the doctrine of sham/fraudulent transactions and found that payment by nephews and post-registration transfers evidenced benami layering, negating the lineal ascendant/descendant exception because the property benefited the payors, not the registered holder; consequence: findings attract PBPTA consequences. Procedural compliance with Rule 5 was held immaterial where substantive benami elements are established, with bank statements, agreements and admissions satisfying the evidentiary burden; consequence: procedural objections do not vitiate the substantive determination of benami ownership.
Analysis of alleged benami transaction focusses on beneficial ownership, source of consideration, and documentary versus circumstantial evidence. Tribunal applied the doctrine of sham/fraudulent transactions and found that payment by nephews and post-registration transfers evidenced benami layering, negating the lineal ascendant/descendant exception because the property benefited the payors, not the registered holder; consequence: findings attract PBPTA consequences. Procedural compliance with Rule 5 was held immaterial where substantive benami elements are established, with bank statements, agreements and admissions satisfying the evidentiary burden; consequence: procedural objections do not vitiate the substantive determination of benami ownership.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
