https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287045 A second appeal under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 requires a substantial question of law, and the benami defence cannot be saved by Section 4(3)(b) unless the fiduciary-capacity exception is actually made out. The Delhi High Court noted that a mother does not, merely because she is the appellant's parent, hold property in a fiduciary capacity to her major son for this purpose. It also observed that the statute creates only a limited express exception for purchase in the name of a wife or unmarried daughter, with no comparable presumption for a mother. The authorities cited did not extend the exception, so the benami bar remained applicable. en-us Mon, 01 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:42:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287045 A second appeal under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 requires a substantial question of law, and the benami defence cannot be saved by Section 4(3)(b) unless the fiduciary-capacity exception is actually made out. The Delhi High Court noted that a mother does not, merely because she is the appellant's parent, hold property in a fiduciary capacity to her major son for this purpose. It also observed that the statute creates only a limited express exception for purchase in the name of a wife or unmarried daughter, with no comparable presumption for a mother. The authorities cited did not extend the exception, so the benami bar remained applicable. Case-Laws Benami Property Mon, 01 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287045