<?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>2025 (1) TMI 1816 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468445</link>
    <description>An agreement to sell immovable property does not, by itself, create any interest, title, or charge; title passes only by a registered conveyance, so the proposed purchaser acquired no proprietary right where only part consideration was paid and no sale deed executed. A benami finding under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 requires affirmative proof that the property was held in one person&#039;s name for the benefit of another and that the statutory ingredients are satisfied on evidence; on the record, those elements were not established. The provisional attachment was therefore held unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 18:55:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=900305" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 1816 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468445</link>
      <description>An agreement to sell immovable property does not, by itself, create any interest, title, or charge; title passes only by a registered conveyance, so the proposed purchaser acquired no proprietary right where only part consideration was paid and no sale deed executed. A benami finding under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 requires affirmative proof that the property was held in one person&#039;s name for the benefit of another and that the statutory ingredients are satisfied on evidence; on the record, those elements were not established. The provisional attachment was therefore held unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468445</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>