https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384225 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, declaring the appellant not a beneficial owner under the Prevention of Benami Property Transactions Act. The attachment order was upheld, but the appellant's name was removed from the list of beneficial owners due to lack of substantial evidence against them. The Tribunal noted that the allegations were based on presumptions without proof and that no prima facie evidence was presented to continue the attachment. Therefore, the appellant was successful in proving their non-involvement as a beneficial owner, although the attachment of the amount in question would persist. en-us Thu, 16 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Dec 2019 18:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384225 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, declaring the appellant not a beneficial owner under the Prevention of Benami Property Transactions Act. The attachment order was upheld, but the appellant's name was removed from the list of beneficial owners due to lack of substantial evidence against them. The Tribunal noted that the allegations were based on presumptions without proof and that no prima facie evidence was presented to continue the attachment. Therefore, the appellant was successful in proving their non-involvement as a beneficial owner, although the attachment of the amount in question would persist. Case-Laws Benami Property Thu, 16 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384225