Ganpati Dealcom (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India - [2019] 112 taxmann.com 367 (Calcutta) In 2011, appellant-writ petitioner purchased the property and sellers were diverse individuals. In 2017 after the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 was amended by the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 with effect from 25-10-2016, authority invoked section 24(1) and issued a notice to the appellant alleging that the said property was benami under section 2(8) of the said Act of 1988, as amended. It also alleged violation of section 2(9)(D) thereof and the consideration for this transaction was provided by "non-traceable fictitious/shell entities having no real business", rendering the transaction benami. The Calcutta High Court held that Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 was new legislation and in order to have retrospectivity, it should have been specifically provided therein that it was intended to cover contraventions at an earlier p...
Comments
Post a Comment