https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796474 Benami ownership was established for the identified shares through cumulative circumstantial evidence: the apparent holder lacked financial and operational capacity, purchase funds came through broker-connected entities, repayments were funded by promoter-group entities, and no independent commercial source was substantiated. The individual was therefore treated as beneficial owner and the company as benamidar, sustaining attachment of those shares. Freezing of additional shares was invalid because the provisional attachment, notice and impugned order did not cover them or identify them as benami property; their release to the rightful owner was directed. Attachment cannot extend beyond property specifically covered by statutory proceedings. en-us Thu, 30 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Aug 2026 09:11:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796474 Benami ownership was established for the identified shares through cumulative circumstantial evidence: the apparent holder lacked financial and operational capacity, purchase funds came through broker-connected entities, repayments were funded by promoter-group entities, and no independent commercial source was substantiated. The individual was therefore treated as beneficial owner and the company as benamidar, sustaining attachment of those shares. Freezing of additional shares was invalid because the provisional attachment, notice and impugned order did not cover them or identify them as benami property; their release to the rightful owner was directed. Attachment cannot extend beyond property specifically covered by statutory proceedings. Case-Laws Benami Property Thu, 30 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796474