On a petition for special leave to appeal from the decision of the High Court holding that section 2(9)(A) and (C) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 as amended by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 can only have effect prospectively, and that the Central Government having notified the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act of 2016 as November 1, 2016, these two provisions could not be applied to a transaction which took place prior to November 1, 2016. The Court held that the amendments to the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 brought by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 do not have retrospective effect. Followed, UOI v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt Ltd.(2022) 447 ITR 1008 (SC).
ACIT v. Nexus Feeds Ltd (2023)453 ITR 459 (SC) Editorial: Nexus Feeds Ltd v. ACIT (2022) 444 ITR 261 (Telangana) (HC), affirmed.
S. 2(9) : Benami Property Transactions-Amendment of Act in 2016 Provisions are substantive-Not applicable with retrospective effect- The amendments to the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 brought by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 do not have retrospective effect.[S. 2(9)(A) (2(9)(C), Art, 20, 136, 226]