<?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>Appeals dismissed; property held benami under Section 2(9)(A) after finding transfer, title recording, and future benefit</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94191</link>
    <description>AT dismissed the appeals and upheld the provisional attachment of the impugned property, finding a benami transaction under Section 2(9)(A). The Tribunal held that (1) consideration was transferred from the beneficial owner to the benamidar&#039;s account, (2) title was recorded in the benamidar, and (3) the acquisition was for the future benefit of the beneficial owner, satisfying all limbs of the statutory definition. Alleged loan evidence and a collaboration agreement were absent or unsubstantiated, and the belated induction of the benamidar&#039;s son into a partnership was seen as contrived. The AT found no error in the respondents&#039; actions and affirmed the attachment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2025 07:56:56 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2025 07:56:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=864798" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeals dismissed; property held benami under Section 2(9)(A) after finding transfer, title recording, and future benefit</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94191</link>
      <description>AT dismissed the appeals and upheld the provisional attachment of the impugned property, finding a benami transaction under Section 2(9)(A). The Tribunal held that (1) consideration was transferred from the beneficial owner to the benamidar&#039;s account, (2) title was recorded in the benamidar, and (3) the acquisition was for the future benefit of the beneficial owner, satisfying all limbs of the statutory definition. Alleged loan evidence and a collaboration agreement were absent or unsubstantiated, and the belated induction of the benamidar&#039;s son into a partnership was seen as contrived. The AT found no error in the respondents&#039; actions and affirmed the attachment.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Benami Property</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2025 07:56:56 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94191</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>