https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781762 AT held that the Adjudicating Authority failed to comply with prior HC directions to examine each case on merits while treating the 2016 amendment as prospective, and incorrectly relied on a SC judgment that has since been recalled. Since the merits, particularly whether the transaction falls within the amended definition of "benami transaction" under section 2(9)(A), were never adjudicated, the impugned order could not stand. AT clarified that a recalled SC judgment cannot be applied even partially unless expressly limited. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication of the reference and property attachment. en-us Mon, 28 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Nov 2025 08:42:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781762 AT held that the Adjudicating Authority failed to comply with prior HC directions to examine each case on merits while treating the 2016 amendment as prospective, and incorrectly relied on a SC judgment that has since been recalled. Since the merits, particularly whether the transaction falls within the amended definition of "benami transaction" under section 2(9)(A), were never adjudicated, the impugned order could not stand. AT clarified that a recalled SC judgment cannot be applied even partially unless expressly limited. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication of the reference and property attachment. Case-Laws Benami Property Mon, 28 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781762