Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal held that flats purchased with consideration paid by the appellant, but registered in the names of others who did not pay for them, fell within the statutory definition of benami transaction. It further held that the amended definition under Section 2(9)(A) covered property still held in benamidars' names after the 2016 amendment, so the challenge based on pre-amendment origin failed. The objection that provisional attachment concerned non-existent property was also rejected because allotment letters were issued, consideration was paid, and registered agreements existed. Provisional attachment and its confirmation were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
The Appellate Tribunal held that flats purchased with consideration paid by the appellant, but registered in the names of others who did not pay for them, fell within the statutory definition of benami transaction. It further held that the amended definition under Section 2(9)(A) covered property still held in benamidars' names after the 2016 amendment, so the challenge based on pre-amendment origin failed. The objection that provisional attachment concerned non-existent property was also rejected because allotment letters were issued, consideration was paid, and registered agreements existed. Provisional attachment and its confirmation were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.