| COURT: | Supreme Court |
| CORAM: | L. Nageswara Rao J, M. R. Shah J |
| SECTION(S): | Benami Transactions Prohibition Act |
| GENRE: | Other Laws |
| CATCH WORDS: | Benami Transactions |
| COUNSEL: | G. Balaji, V. Prabhakar |
| DATE: | May 9, 2019 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | May 18, 2019 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | - |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
| Benami Transactions: While considering whether a particular transaction is benami, the intention of the person who contributed the purchase money is determinative. The intention has to be decided on the basis of surrounding circumstances; relationship of parties; motives governing their action in bringing about the transaction and subsequent conduct. The payment of part sale consideration & stamp duty cannot be the sole criteria to hold the sale/transaction as benami | |
It is required to be noted that the benami transaction came to be amended in the year 2016. As per Section 3 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act 1988, there was a presumption that the transaction made in the name of the wife and children is for their benefit. By Benami Amendment Act,2016, Section 3 (2) of the Benami Transaction Act, 1988 the statutory presumption, which was rebuttable, has been omitted.It is the case on behalf of the respondents that therefore in view of omission of Section 3(2) of the Benami Transaction Act, the plea of statutory transaction that the purchase made in the name of wife or children is for their benefit would not be available in the present case. Aforesaid cannot be accepted. As held by this Court in the case of Binapani Paul (Supra) the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act would not be applicable retrospectively
Recent Comments