https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785269 In prosecutions under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, allegations of large post-demonetisation cash deposits, sharp turnover disparity, and fabricated sales materials were treated as sufficient to continue proceedings at the charge stage against the first and second accused, and the defence of genuineness could not be examined on merits. The Court also noted that non-identification of the beneficial owner did not warrant discharge where the statutory definition covers consideration allegedly provided by a fictitious or untraceable person. By contrast, a dormant partner could not be proceeded against without specific pleadings showing she was in charge of and responsible for the firm's business; in the absence of such averments and supporting material, proceedings against the third accused were set aside. en-us Mon, 19 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Jan 2026 08:41:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785269 In prosecutions under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, allegations of large post-demonetisation cash deposits, sharp turnover disparity, and fabricated sales materials were treated as sufficient to continue proceedings at the charge stage against the first and second accused, and the defence of genuineness could not be examined on merits. The Court also noted that non-identification of the beneficial owner did not warrant discharge where the statutory definition covers consideration allegedly provided by a fictitious or untraceable person. By contrast, a dormant partner could not be proceeded against without specific pleadings showing she was in charge of and responsible for the firm's business; in the absence of such averments and supporting material, proceedings against the third accused were set aside. Case-Laws Benami Property Mon, 19 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785269