https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768863 The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA set aside the provisional attachment order of Rs. 1,12,00,000 deposited in appellant's bank account with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Ludhiana. The tribunal found that the investigating authority failed to establish that the transaction was benami under Section 2(9)(A) of PBPTA. Despite suspicious circumstances including receipt of bank credit within three days of demonetization, the investigation could not prove the beneficial owner's explanation was fabricated. The tribunal noted that advance payment from a valid PAN holder without prior transaction history was possible in trading business, and the authority failed to explain existence of bilties and transporter account details. Appeal allowed. en-us Thu, 27 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Apr 2025 08:35:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768863 The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA set aside the provisional attachment order of Rs. 1,12,00,000 deposited in appellant's bank account with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Ludhiana. The tribunal found that the investigating authority failed to establish that the transaction was benami under Section 2(9)(A) of PBPTA. Despite suspicious circumstances including receipt of bank credit within three days of demonetization, the investigation could not prove the beneficial owner's explanation was fabricated. The tribunal noted that advance payment from a valid PAN holder without prior transaction history was possible in trading business, and the authority failed to explain existence of bilties and transporter account details. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Benami Property Thu, 27 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768863