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.
The Tribunal held that once allegations of money laundering are established, the burden shifts to the accused. Failure to prove legitimate income led to continuation of freezing and seizure.
The Tribunal held that incorrect identification of property does not invalidate proceedings when benami investment is established. It allowed attachment of assets derived from bogus share premium.
