<?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>2026 (3) TMI 263 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787508</link>
    <description>Benami transactions: the note concludes that immovable property and proceeds from sale of part of lands qualify as benami where consideration was provided by another and the ostensible holder lacked financial capacity and possession of title; proceeds from sale of benami land are treated as benami. The Amending Act, 2016 is held applicable to properties transferred before but held by the alleged ostensible holder after the amendment, applying the amended definition. The fiduciary exception is rejected where the alleged fiduciary exercised dominion, retained deeds and received sale proceeds, indicating personal benefit inconsistent with an exclusive trust.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2026 08:39:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=889310" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 263 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787508</link>
      <description>Benami transactions: the note concludes that immovable property and proceeds from sale of part of lands qualify as benami where consideration was provided by another and the ostensible holder lacked financial capacity and possession of title; proceeds from sale of benami land are treated as benami. The Amending Act, 2016 is held applicable to properties transferred before but held by the alleged ostensible holder after the amendment, applying the amended definition. The fiduciary exception is rejected where the alleged fiduciary exercised dominion, retained deeds and received sale proceeds, indicating personal benefit inconsistent with an exclusive trust.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Benami Property</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787508</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>