<?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>2025 (11) TMI 884 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781416</link>
    <description>Consideration traced to one person, property acquired in another&#039;s name, and the surrounding records showed no credible independent funding, loan documentation, or other statutory exception. On those facts, the arrangement satisfied the ingredients of a benami transaction under Section 2(9)(A) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, because the property was held for the future benefit of the person who supplied the consideration. A later partnership arrangement did not displace those ingredients where the initial acquisition remained unsupported by evidence. The provisional attachment was therefore confirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2025 07:56:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=864747" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 884 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781416</link>
      <description>Consideration traced to one person, property acquired in another&#039;s name, and the surrounding records showed no credible independent funding, loan documentation, or other statutory exception. On those facts, the arrangement satisfied the ingredients of a benami transaction under Section 2(9)(A) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, because the property was held for the future benefit of the person who supplied the consideration. A later partnership arrangement did not displace those ingredients where the initial acquisition remained unsupported by evidence. The provisional attachment was therefore confirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Benami Property</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781416</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>