https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780925 Appellate Tribunal (AT) dismissed the appeals, affirming a finding of benami transaction: the beneficial owner funded construction amounting to Rs. 4.13 crore while title stood in the benamidar, with only Rs. 1.1 crore recorded after sale. The Tribunal held the Initiating Officer validly treated the property as benami and that provisional attachment-though approved before issuance of the Section 24(1) notice-was saved by Section 63, curing the procedural defect. The appellants failed to prove legitimate source of funds or rebut the onus shifted to them, so the attachment and dismissal were upheld. en-us Thu, 16 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Nov 2025 08:30:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780925 Appellate Tribunal (AT) dismissed the appeals, affirming a finding of benami transaction: the beneficial owner funded construction amounting to Rs. 4.13 crore while title stood in the benamidar, with only Rs. 1.1 crore recorded after sale. The Tribunal held the Initiating Officer validly treated the property as benami and that provisional attachment-though approved before issuance of the Section 24(1) notice-was saved by Section 63, curing the procedural defect. The appellants failed to prove legitimate source of funds or rebut the onus shifted to them, so the attachment and dismissal were upheld. Case-Laws Benami Property Thu, 16 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780925