The SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal held that properties belonging to an alleged abettor cannot be attached under the PBPT Act unless those properties are independently proved to be benami properties. The Tribunal clarified that the Act permits attachment only of benami properties held by a benamidar or beneficial owner.
The Appellate Tribunal held that routing demonetized cash through another person’s bank account and transferring it back constituted a benami transaction under the PBPT Act. The ruling clarified that cash qualifies as “property” and can form the basis of benami proceedings.
SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal held that flats purchased in third-party names using appellant’s own funds constituted a valid benami transaction. Tribunal ruled that payment of consideration by one person while property is held by another attracts Section 2(9)(A) of amended Benami Act.
The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA held that routing demonetized cash through another person’s bank account constituted a benami transaction under the PBPT Act. The Tribunal ruled that cash qualifies as “property” and attachment could continue to the extent of the remaining benefit retained.
The issue was whether properties purchased using company funds could escape benami classification. The Tribunal held that unexplained sources and cash routing justified treating transactions as benami.
The Tribunal ruled that transactions predating the alleged crime cannot be treated as proceeds of crime without a clear link. It set aside most attachments due to absence of foundational evidence. The decision reinforces the necessity of establishing a direct nexus under PMLA.
The issue was whether properties unconnected to crime could be attached under PMLA. The Tribunal held that equivalent value assets can be attached when proceeds of crime are untraceable.
The Tribunal ruled that taxation of income does not negate its use in benami transactions. Even disclosed or assessed income can form part of a benami arrangement. The judgment clarifies the independent scope of benami law.
The issue was whether property not directly linked to crime could be attached. The Tribunal held that attachment of equivalent value is valid when proceeds of crime are untraceable.
The issue was cancellation of GST registration without recording reasons or granting a hearing. The Court held such orders violate due process and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
