Fraudulently obtained SEIS scrips cannot support customs exemption; recovery, confiscation and penalties were sustained, but employee penalty fell awa...
The Tribunal held that the impugned land transfers satisfied section 2(9)(A) of the PBPTA because the Trusts provided the consideration, the properties stood in Shri Lamba's name, and the arrangement was for the Trusts' immediate and future benefit. It rejected the section 53A-based exclusion, finding that the statutory carve-out applies to a seller-buyer part-performance situation and not to a tripartite arrangement involving a third-party beneficiary. The fiduciary capacity exception also failed, as the MoUs showed deliberate name lending to bypass the prohibition on Trusts buying agricultural land. The later Karnataka law amendment did not alter the benami character.
The Tribunal held that the impugned land transfers satisfied section 2(9)(A) of the PBPTA because the Trusts provided the consideration, the properties stood in Shri Lamba's name, and the arrangement was for the Trusts' immediate and future benefit. It rejected the section 53A-based exclusion, finding that the statutory carve-out applies to a seller-buyer part-performance situation and not to a tripartite arrangement involving a third-party beneficiary. The fiduciary capacity exception also failed, as the MoUs showed deliberate name lending to bypass the prohibition on Trusts buying agricultural land. The later Karnataka law amendment did not alter the benami character.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
