https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787144 Tribunal reviewed whether transfers qualified as benami and whether the fiduciary exception under Section 2(9)(A) applied; it found the intermediary received unexplained large cash deposits, inconsistent business records and unreliable documentary evidence, and that transfers were one way without demonstrated repayment obligations, resembling accommodation entries and monetisation of demonetised currency, therefore the fiduciary exception was not established and the provisional attachment under Section 24(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 was confirmed-the appeal was dismissed. en-us Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Feb 2026 08:36:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787144 Tribunal reviewed whether transfers qualified as benami and whether the fiduciary exception under Section 2(9)(A) applied; it found the intermediary received unexplained large cash deposits, inconsistent business records and unreliable documentary evidence, and that transfers were one way without demonstrated repayment obligations, resembling accommodation entries and monetisation of demonetised currency, therefore the fiduciary exception was not established and the provisional attachment under Section 24(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 was confirmed-the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Benami Property Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787144