<?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 660 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791458</link>
    <description>A prima facie benami inference may arise where immovable property is purchased in the appellants&#039; names despite negligible disclosed income, and the consideration is traced through cash deposits and layered banking transfers that remain unexplained. The Tribunal relied on statements recorded under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, together with the absence of any genuine lending or contractual explanation, to treat the transactions as benami in nature. On that material, the appellants failed to rebut the source of consideration or displace the inference, and the provisional attachment of the properties was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 May 2026 08:50:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=901207" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 660 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791458</link>
      <description>A prima facie benami inference may arise where immovable property is purchased in the appellants&#039; names despite negligible disclosed income, and the consideration is traced through cash deposits and layered banking transfers that remain unexplained. The Tribunal relied on statements recorded under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, together with the absence of any genuine lending or contractual explanation, to treat the transactions as benami in nature. On that material, the appellants failed to rebut the source of consideration or displace the inference, and the provisional attachment of the properties was upheld.</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=791458</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>