https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311807 The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA dismissed special leave petitions challenging provisional attachment orders under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016. Following SC precedent in Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that Sections 2(9)(A) and 2(9)(C) are substantive provisions creating benami transaction offences with significantly wider scope than the original 1988 Act. These provisions operate prospectively from the Amendment Act's effective date of 01.11.2016 and cannot apply to transactions occurring before this date. The petitions were dismissed on identical grounds despite pending review applications. en-us Thu, 20 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 14 Jan 2024 09:29:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311807 The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA dismissed special leave petitions challenging provisional attachment orders under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016. Following SC precedent in Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that Sections 2(9)(A) and 2(9)(C) are substantive provisions creating benami transaction offences with significantly wider scope than the original 1988 Act. These provisions operate prospectively from the Amendment Act's effective date of 01.11.2016 and cannot apply to transactions occurring before this date. The petitions were dismissed on identical grounds despite pending review applications. Case-Laws Benami Property Thu, 20 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311807