<?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>2016 (9) TMI 1590 - Calcutta High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293947</link>
    <description>A benami defence is generally barred under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, but the statutory prohibition does not apply where the transaction falls within the fiduciary-capacity exception. On the facts, the property stood in the wife&#039;s name while consideration was traced to the husband or his companies, and the marital relationship and surrounding circumstances supported a finding of fiduciary holding. The absence of a specific pleading on fiduciary capacity did not defeat the legal issue. Concurrent findings on source of consideration were not shown to be perverse, so the benami challenge failed and the decrees below were left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2021 09:13:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=638575" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 1590 - Calcutta High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293947</link>
      <description>A benami defence is generally barred under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, but the statutory prohibition does not apply where the transaction falls within the fiduciary-capacity exception. On the facts, the property stood in the wife&#039;s name while consideration was traced to the husband or his companies, and the marital relationship and surrounding circumstances supported a finding of fiduciary holding. The absence of a specific pleading on fiduciary capacity did not defeat the legal issue. Concurrent findings on source of consideration were not shown to be perverse, so the benami challenge failed and the decrees below were left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Benami Property</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293947</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>