<?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>Auction property bought using a claimed loan: bank routing failed to disprove benami nature under s. 2(9)(D); attachment upheld.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95235</link>
    <description>The dominant issue was whether the auction purchase funded through a purported loan constituted a benami transaction under the 1988 Act. The Tribunal held that routing consideration through banking channels did not rebut benami character where neither the purchasers nor the lender had demonstrated creditworthiness, and the lender&#039;s capacity to advance the huge loan was unsupported by its turnover and partners&#039; knowledge. With no pleaded or proved legitimate source of funds, the consideration and beneficial ownership were treated as unknown, attracting s. 2(9)(D), to which the exception under s. 2(9)(A) was held inapplicable. Consequently, the provisional attachment was upheld and the appeals were dismissed. - AT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2025 07:45:34 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2025 07:45:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=873003" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Auction property bought using a claimed loan: bank routing failed to disprove benami nature under s. 2(9)(D); attachment upheld.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95235</link>
      <description>The dominant issue was whether the auction purchase funded through a purported loan constituted a benami transaction under the 1988 Act. The Tribunal held that routing consideration through banking channels did not rebut benami character where neither the purchasers nor the lender had demonstrated creditworthiness, and the lender&#039;s capacity to advance the huge loan was unsupported by its turnover and partners&#039; knowledge. With no pleaded or proved legitimate source of funds, the consideration and beneficial ownership were treated as unknown, attracting s. 2(9)(D), to which the exception under s. 2(9)(A) was held inapplicable. Consequently, the provisional attachment was upheld and the appeals were dismissed. - AT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Benami Property</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2025 07:45:34 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95235</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>