High Court held that section 2(9)(A) and section 2(9)(C) are substantive provisions creating offence of benami transaction and are substantially wider than definition of benami transaction under section 2(a) of unamended 1988 Act, section 2(9)(A) and section 2(9)(C) can only have effect prospectively i.e. 1-11-2016. High Court, further, held that since transaction in question was dated 14-12-2011 provision of section 2(9)(A) could not be applied, accordingly the order of provisional attachment would be null and void. Referred UOI v. Ganpati Dealcom (P.) Ltd. [2022] 289 Taxman 177/447 ITR 108 (SC). SLP of Revenue is dismissed.
ACIT v. Nexus Feeds Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 459/ 294 Taxman 438 (SC) Editorial: Nexus Feeds Ltd v. ACIT (2022) 444 ITR 261 / 137 taxmann.com 261 (Telengana)(HC)
S. 2(9) : Benami transaction-Amendment of Act in 2016 Provisions are substantive-Not applicable with retrospective effect-Every litigant has a vested right in substantive law, but no such right exists in procedural law-Interpretation of taxing statutes-Rule against retrospectivity-Transactions prior to amendment in 2016-Notices, orders for provisional attachment and adjudicating orders are set aside-Oder of High Court affirmed. [S. 2(9)(A) (2(9)(C), 4(a)(i), 24(3) 26(3), Art. Art.20 136]