Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
