https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787204 The Tribunal found that the appellant did not prove independent funds for acquiring the property and treated the claimed lease deed as forged because it was unsupported by the original document, reliable third-party evidence, timely income disclosure, or bank records. It held that the transaction fell within the benami transaction framework since the consideration was traced to funds routed through accounts connected with the beneficial owner's family and concerns, and uncertainty about the exact beneficial owner did not defeat attachment. It also accepted that appellate power could, in principle, vary the adjudication order, but declined to alter the beneficial-ownership finding because further inquiry was already directed. The attachment was confirmed and the appeal failed. en-us Thu, 26 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:57:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787204 The Tribunal found that the appellant did not prove independent funds for acquiring the property and treated the claimed lease deed as forged because it was unsupported by the original document, reliable third-party evidence, timely income disclosure, or bank records. It held that the transaction fell within the benami transaction framework since the consideration was traced to funds routed through accounts connected with the beneficial owner's family and concerns, and uncertainty about the exact beneficial owner did not defeat attachment. It also accepted that appellate power could, in principle, vary the adjudication order, but declined to alter the beneficial-ownership finding because further inquiry was already directed. The attachment was confirmed and the appeal failed. Case-Laws Benami Property Thu, 26 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787204