This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Use of Common Business Premises Not Sufficient to Prove Benami Transaction: SAFEMA
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- DCIT (BPU) Vs Sara Company (Appellate Tribunal Under Safema At New Delhi)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Courts
- Appellate Authority, SAFEMA
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Advertisement
DCIT (BPU) Vs Sara Company (Appellate Tribunal Under Safema At New Delhi)
The appeals were filed under Section 46(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, challenging the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, which had refused to confirm the provisional attachment of property. The Adjudicating Authority had concluded that no benami transaction existed and answered the reference against the appellant.
The case involved allegations that the respondent entity was acting as a benamidar for a beneficial owner. The Initiating Officer ha...
Author Info
