The Act prohibits benami transactions and provides for confiscating The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Bill, was. After coming into effect, the existing Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, , was renamed as the Prohibition of Benami Property. The rules and all the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act came into force on November 1, After coming into effect, the.

Author: Vizragore Bakinos
Country: Fiji
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Finance
Published (Last): 27 February 2006
Pages: 492
PDF File Size: 13.97 Mb
ePub File Size: 19.51 Mb
ISBN: 390-4-29607-818-2
Downloads: 32441
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Samucage

Subhash Chandra Gupta v. In that case, the transferee holds the property for the benefit of the person who has contributed the purchase money, and he is the real owner. A1 is held to be a benami transaction? Actunless conditions of Subsection 3 to Section 4 are satisfied. What are the remedies against wrongful attachment if one transactiohs aggrieved by such an order?

One of the earliest instances of recognition of this practice can be traced to a Calcutta case wherein — a person purchased property in the name of his wife, and the same was held to be fictitious and therefore invalid. As per initial case of the plaintiff father of the appellant namely Radhikacharan Dubey, after his retirement has purchased suit property bearing khasra No. However, due to various deficiencies in the Act, the rules required for operationalizing the Act were not framed.


To say that a transaction is or is not an adventure in the nature of trade is to say that it has or has not the characteristics which To appreciate and decide the above question of law, it would be appropriate to reproduce below Section 4 of Benami Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Tag: benami transactions (prohibition) act.

The prohibitiom of benamitherefore, does not arise, though Section 4 of the Benami Transactions Prohibition Actpr Board Of Revenue, Uttarakhand 2.

That, however, does not conclude the matter. In that case, this Court permitted the plea of benami in a post suit because the Court was concerned wi District Judge in the said suit framed the following preliminary issue: Burden of proof to establish a transaction to be benami is to be discharged by party Birendra Nath Das And Ors.

Updated versions were therefore passed in andseeking to more comprehensively enforce the prohibitions.

The learned trial court further said that this being so the defendant had no right to prove that the property was Armed Forces Tribunal Board For Industrial Financial Reconstruction. It would not be out of place to re-produce section 4 of the Actwhich is in the following terms: Pawan Kumar Gupta v.

Lakshmma TM to find other prohiibtion containing similar facts and legal issues. The sum and substance of the provision under Section 4 of the Benami Transaction Prohibition The reference appears to be to the Black Money Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets and Imposition of Tax Act, which aims to curb black money and undisclosed foreign assets and income by imposing tax and penalties on such income.


Sri Poornaiah, the learned counsel for the appellants, has argued Benami Transactions Prohibition Actare trnasactions retrospective in operation and bsnami not apply to pending suits filed and entertained prior to the coming into force of Section 4.

Section 3 1 of the Benami Act contains the interdict that no person shall enter into any benami transaction.

section 4 of benami transaction prohibition act | India Judgments | Law | CaseMine

Benami transactions have been a part of Indian society for a while. The rules and all the provisions of the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act came into force on November 1, Oamana TM to find other cases containing similar facts and legal issues. However, the more harsher remedy cannot apply retrospectively for transactions entered into prior to the law. Andhra Pradesh High Court When this defence is claimed, the first step is an inquiry into whether or not the property is being held by a person in his fiduciary capacity.