Held that Supreme Court In UOI v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. [2022] 447 ITR 108 (SC)has laid down certain guidelines on the applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016. By the Amendment Act of 2016, a criminal offence was introduced in the form of section 3 and section 5 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the amendment would be effective only from October 25, 2016.Accordingly, that in view of the undisputed fact that the transactions in question in these cases were of a period prior to 2016, the amendment to the Act made in the year 2016 would not be applicable. Therefore, the notices under section 24 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 were not sustainable in law hence quashed.
Banamali Das v. Dy. CIT (2023)453 ITR 569 (Gauhati)(HC) Ganesh Chandra Das v. Dy. CIT (2023) 453 ITR 569 (Gauhati)(HC) Ganesh Chandra Das. v. Dy. CIT (2023) 453 ITR 565 (Gauhati)(HC) Salien Das v. Dy. CIT (2023) 453 ITR 569 (Gauhati)(HC)
S. 5 : Property held benami liable to confiscation-Benami property- Benami transactions-Benami Transactions-Attachment, adjudication and confiscation-Sections 3 and 5 which deal with criminal offences applicable effective only from 25-10-2016- Provisions are prospective. [S. 2(8), 2(9), 3, 24]