https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777051 AT held against the appellant: supplying "reasons to believe" with the s.24(1) SCN is not mandatory and omission did not vitiate proceedings where IO possessed ample incriminating material. Even if statements of alleged intermediaries were discarded, admitted facts and documents sufficed to proceed under the PBPT Act. Cash deposited via third-party accounts during demonetisation constituted movable property held by a benamidar on behalf of the appellant, and subsequent transfers back to the beneficial owner do not negate a benami transaction. The tribunal upheld attachment for Rs.85,18,600 irrespective of the account balance at attachment. en-us Tue, 12 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Aug 2025 08:31:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777051 AT held against the appellant: supplying "reasons to believe" with the s.24(1) SCN is not mandatory and omission did not vitiate proceedings where IO possessed ample incriminating material. Even if statements of alleged intermediaries were discarded, admitted facts and documents sufficed to proceed under the PBPT Act. Cash deposited via third-party accounts during demonetisation constituted movable property held by a benamidar on behalf of the appellant, and subsequent transfers back to the beneficial owner do not negate a benami transaction. The tribunal upheld attachment for Rs.85,18,600 irrespective of the account balance at attachment. Case-Laws Benami Property Tue, 12 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777051