https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784145 Whether the provisional attachment was sustainable by treating the properties as "benami property" under s.2(9)(A) of the 1988 Act (as amended in 2016) was decided against the appellants. The Tribunal held that the record showed an admission that the properties were purchased in the name of a benamidar while consideration was provided by the beneficial owner, satisfying the statutory ingredients of s.2(9)(A). The plea that the 2016 amendment operated only prospectively was rejected as inconclusive pending SC clarity, and, in any event, the appellants failed to substantiate any asserted onward transfer arrangement or explain purchase in the benamidar's name despite lack of means. The appeals were dismissed and the attachment order upheld. en-us Tue, 25 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Dec 2025 09:27:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784145 Whether the provisional attachment was sustainable by treating the properties as "benami property" under s.2(9)(A) of the 1988 Act (as amended in 2016) was decided against the appellants. The Tribunal held that the record showed an admission that the properties were purchased in the name of a benamidar while consideration was provided by the beneficial owner, satisfying the statutory ingredients of s.2(9)(A). The plea that the 2016 amendment operated only prospectively was rejected as inconclusive pending SC clarity, and, in any event, the appellants failed to substantiate any asserted onward transfer arrangement or explain purchase in the benamidar's name despite lack of means. The appeals were dismissed and the attachment order upheld. Case-Laws Benami Property Tue, 25 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784145