https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65848 The appeal of the revenue was dismissed by the Judicial Member and supported by the Third Member, finding no merit in the case against Mr. Peter Thorose. The burden of proof was deemed not discharged by the revenue, as evidence did not support the claim of benami ownership. The decision was based on the lack of substantial evidence and the improper assumption of jurisdiction under section 158BD. en-us Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:04:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65848 The appeal of the revenue was dismissed by the Judicial Member and supported by the Third Member, finding no merit in the case against Mr. Peter Thorose. The burden of proof was deemed not discharged by the revenue, as evidence did not support the claim of benami ownership. The decision was based on the lack of substantial evidence and the improper assumption of jurisdiction under section 158BD. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65848