<?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>High Court Upholds Tribunal&#039;s Decision: Benami Act Amendments Not Retrospective, Despite Revenue&#039;s Argument.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=73585</link>
    <description>Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction - funds infused into the shell companies by multiple layering in the guise of share capital or loan - as contended on the side of the appellants (Revenue) that Section 5 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, as amended by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 will have retrospective effect and therefore, the common order passed by the Tribunal, to the contrary, is liable to be interfered with. - pendency of the review of the decision in Union of India vs. Ganapati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd, cannot be a ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2023 13:27:46 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2023 13:27:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=735301" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>High Court Upholds Tribunal&#039;s Decision: Benami Act Amendments Not Retrospective, Despite Revenue&#039;s Argument.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=73585</link>
      <description>Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction - funds infused into the shell companies by multiple layering in the guise of share capital or loan - as contended on the side of the appellants (Revenue) that Section 5 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, as amended by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 will have retrospective effect and therefore, the common order passed by the Tribunal, to the contrary, is liable to be interfered with. - pendency of the review of the decision in Union of India vs. Ganapati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd, cannot be a ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Direct Taxes</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2023 13:27:46 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=73585</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>