Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1341 to 1360 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Under the PBPT Act, attachment can continue only against benami property held by a benamidar or beneficial owner; property cannot be attached merely because its owner is treated as an abettor unless the property itself is found to be benami. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had been proceeded against as beneficial owner initially, but the adjudication position shifted to Smt. Shital Soni as beneficial owner and the appellant as only an abettor. As there was no specific finding that the appellant's attached properties were benami, continuation of attachment was unsustainable. The attachment was set aside to that extent, while the appellant's exposure to consequences for abetment was left unaffected.
Under the PBPT Act, attachment can continue only against benami property held by a benamidar or beneficial owner; property cannot be attached merely because its owner is treated as an abettor unless the property itself is found to be benami. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had been proceeded against as beneficial owner initially, but the adjudication position shifted to Smt. Shital Soni as beneficial owner and the appellant as only an abettor. As there was no specific finding that the appellant's attached properties were benami, continuation of attachment was unsustainable. The attachment was set aside to that extent, while the appellant's exposure to consequences for abetment was left unaffected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.