<?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 (5) TMI 389 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791187</link>
    <description>Provisional attachment under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act is confined to property shown to be benami, whether held by the benamidar or the beneficial owner. A finding that a person merely abetted the transaction does not, by itself, justify attaching that person&#039;s independent assets unless those assets are specifically found to be benami property. Here, the underlying transaction was found benami and the appellant&#039;s role as abettor was maintained, but the order did not record the necessary finding that the attached properties themselves were benami. The attachment of those properties was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 07:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=900378" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 389 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791187</link>
      <description>Provisional attachment under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act is confined to property shown to be benami, whether held by the benamidar or the beneficial owner. A finding that a person merely abetted the transaction does not, by itself, justify attaching that person&#039;s independent assets unless those assets are specifically found to be benami property. Here, the underlying transaction was found benami and the appellant&#039;s role as abettor was maintained, but the order did not record the necessary finding that the attached properties themselves were benami. The attachment of those properties was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Benami Property</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791187</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>