<?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>2024 (6) TMI 1045 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754438</link>
    <description>Funds introduced through entities that were non-existent, untraceable, or lacking creditworthiness, then layered through paper concerns and cash deposits, were treated as benami consideration under the amended law. Later banking-channel lending or repayment did not change the character of the original infusion, because the traced funds remained part of the underlying benami pool. The definition of benami property was applied to both the property and its proceeds, and arrangements where the provider of consideration is fictitious or not traceable were covered. On that basis, the provisional attachment was upheld and the refusal to confirm it was found erroneous.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2024 13:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=757423" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 1045 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754438</link>
      <description>Funds introduced through entities that were non-existent, untraceable, or lacking creditworthiness, then layered through paper concerns and cash deposits, were treated as benami consideration under the amended law. Later banking-channel lending or repayment did not change the character of the original infusion, because the traced funds remained part of the underlying benami pool. The definition of benami property was applied to both the property and its proceeds, and arrangements where the provider of consideration is fictitious or not traceable were covered. On that basis, the provisional attachment was upheld and the refusal to confirm it was found erroneous.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Benami Property</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754438</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>