https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751868 Amended benami provisions were applied because the properties continued to be held in the ostensible holder's name after the 2016 amendment, even though purchase predated it. The record supported a benami finding: the ostensible purchaser's income did not explain the acquisitions, and statements indicated payment by another person, so the challenge to the benami determination failed. The complaint of denial of cross-examination also failed because copies of statements had been supplied and no request was made before the adjudicating authority to summon witnesses. However, the later purchaser could not be treated as beneficial owner without proof that he funded the original acquisition, so that part of the finding was set aside. en-us Tue, 12 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Apr 2024 12:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751868 Amended benami provisions were applied because the properties continued to be held in the ostensible holder's name after the 2016 amendment, even though purchase predated it. The record supported a benami finding: the ostensible purchaser's income did not explain the acquisitions, and statements indicated payment by another person, so the challenge to the benami determination failed. The complaint of denial of cross-examination also failed because copies of statements had been supplied and no request was made before the adjudicating authority to summon witnesses. However, the later purchaser could not be treated as beneficial owner without proof that he funded the original acquisition, so that part of the finding was set aside. Case-Laws Benami Property Tue, 12 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751868