https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778688 AT upheld the provisional attachment under Section 24(4)(b) of the Benami Transactions Act, rejecting the challenge that it was governed by Section 24(3). The appellant failed to explain the source of Rs. 2 crore seized; the Adjudicating Authority properly treated the transaction as falling within Section 2(9)(d) and confirmed the PAO. The tribunal held that Income-tax deeming provisions (Sections 68/69A) do not displace the Act of 1988. Appeal dismissed. en-us Wed, 06 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Sep 2025 08:38:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778688 AT upheld the provisional attachment under Section 24(4)(b) of the Benami Transactions Act, rejecting the challenge that it was governed by Section 24(3). The appellant failed to explain the source of Rs. 2 crore seized; the Adjudicating Authority properly treated the transaction as falling within Section 2(9)(d) and confirmed the PAO. The tribunal held that Income-tax deeming provisions (Sections 68/69A) do not displace the Act of 1988. Appeal dismissed. Case-Laws Benami Property Wed, 06 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778688