<?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>Provisional Attachment Upheld on Unaccounted Cash as Movable Benami Property Under PBPT Act Sections 2(26) &amp;amp; 2(8)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91256</link>
    <description>The AT upheld the validity of the provisional attachment order under the PBPT Act over cash seized from the appellant, holding that unaccounted cash qualifies as movable benami property under Section 2(26) and Section 2(8) of the Act. The tribunal rejected the appellant&#039;s contention that a benami transaction requires three parties, affirming that only a benamidar and beneficial owner are necessary. The appellant&#039;s failure to substantiate the source of Rs. 1.84 crore seized and reliance on inconsistent statements, including under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, led to the conclusion that Section 2(9)(D) applies. Filing of ITRs was held insufficient to exclude applicability of the PBPT Act, as unexplained income remains subject to confiscation irrespective of tax compliance. Consequently, the attachment and proceedings under the PBPT Act were affirmed against the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2025 07:54:27 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2025 07:54:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=840950" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Provisional Attachment Upheld on Unaccounted Cash as Movable Benami Property Under PBPT Act Sections 2(26) &amp;amp; 2(8)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91256</link>
      <description>The AT upheld the validity of the provisional attachment order under the PBPT Act over cash seized from the appellant, holding that unaccounted cash qualifies as movable benami property under Section 2(26) and Section 2(8) of the Act. The tribunal rejected the appellant&#039;s contention that a benami transaction requires three parties, affirming that only a benamidar and beneficial owner are necessary. The appellant&#039;s failure to substantiate the source of Rs. 1.84 crore seized and reliance on inconsistent statements, including under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, led to the conclusion that Section 2(9)(D) applies. Filing of ITRs was held insufficient to exclude applicability of the PBPT Act, as unexplained income remains subject to confiscation irrespective of tax compliance. Consequently, the attachment and proceedings under the PBPT Act were affirmed against the appellant.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Benami Property</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2025 07:54:27 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91256</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>