<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2002 (8) TMI 878 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286975</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the application for amendment, holding that the proposed amendments were barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The court emphasized the legislative intent to prohibit benami transactions and not allow defenses based on trusteeship or fiduciary capacity as they existed before the 1988 amendments. The judgment reflects a strict interpretation of the Act, ensuring effective enforcement of its prohibitions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2020 13:55:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=607849" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 878 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286975</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the application for amendment, holding that the proposed amendments were barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The court emphasized the legislative intent to prohibit benami transactions and not allow defenses based on trusteeship or fiduciary capacity as they existed before the 1988 amendments. The judgment reflects a strict interpretation of the Act, ensuring effective enforcement of its prohibitions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Benami Property</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286975</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>