<?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 (4) TMI 806 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789737</link>
    <description>Criminal acquittal or discharge arising from alleged online betting did not bar benami proceedings, because benami adjudication depends on material showing fund flow, routing, and ownership structure rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Initiating Officer&#039;s reasons to believe were upheld since they were supported by search statements and corroborative records of cash movement, banking entries, and seized documents; retraction alone did not nullify that material. Section 24(4)(b)(i) was held to independently permit provisional attachment of additional property not earlier covered under Section 24(3), with prior approval. On the record, the fund layering and accommodation entries disclosed a benami arrangement under Section 2(9)(A), so the provisional attachment was confirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 08:03:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896651" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 806 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789737</link>
      <description>Criminal acquittal or discharge arising from alleged online betting did not bar benami proceedings, because benami adjudication depends on material showing fund flow, routing, and ownership structure rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Initiating Officer&#039;s reasons to believe were upheld since they were supported by search statements and corroborative records of cash movement, banking entries, and seized documents; retraction alone did not nullify that material. Section 24(4)(b)(i) was held to independently permit provisional attachment of additional property not earlier covered under Section 24(3), with prior approval. On the record, the fund layering and accommodation entries disclosed a benami arrangement under Section 2(9)(A), so the provisional attachment was confirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Benami Property</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789737</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>