Benami Transactions (Prohibition of Right to Recover Property ) Ordinance , 1988.
S.2 : Benami transactions – Right to recover the property – Financial assistance was given is not a determinative factor –Burden of proving the Benami Transaction lie on the person who alleges – Failure of plaintiff to establish intention of father to purchase properties for and behalf of family – Transaction cannot be said to be benami in nature – Appeal of petitioner is dismissed.

S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration- Stamp valuation –Entire consideration was invested in bonds -The assessee cannot avoid the impact of S. 50C by claiming that his S. 54EC investment is large enough to cover the deemed consideration based on stamp duty valuation- Such interpretation renders S. 50C redundant -[ S.45,48. 54EC ]

S. 275 : Penalty-Bar of limitation–Limitation provision is applicable to original assessment proceedings and not set aside proceedings – Not barred by limitation. [S. 271(1)(c), 275(1)(a)]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-concealment–Surrender of amount–cash credits–Survey-Surrender was held to be not voluntary-Levy of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 131, 133A]

S. 149 : Reassessment–Time limit for notice-Jurisdiction-Direction of CIT(A) to issue notice after the expiry of period of period of limitation is held to be not valid. [S. 147, 148, 150, 250]

S. 147 : Reassessment-Change of opinion-Re-insurance premium- Failure to deduct tax at source–Reassessment is held to be bad in law. [S. 195]

S. 147 : Reassessment-Royalty–Survey-Merely because tax was deducted at source on such income it could not be said that there was no escapement of income-Wrong mentioning of provision of law relating to other issues in the reasons recorded would not vitiate reassessment proceedings-Reassessment is held to be valid -DATA- India -South Korea. [S. 133A, 148, Art. 5(2)]

S. 147 : Reassessment-Capital gains—Transfer of property—Development agreement-General power of attorney-Handed over possession-Liable to capital gains-Reassessment is held to be valid–To determine short term or long term, matter remanded to AO. [S. 2(47)(v), 148 Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.53]

S. 115JB : Book profit-Insurance Companies-Provision is not applicable.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s Length Price-Payment of application cost-TNMM method–TPO adopted CUP method and determined nil–Separate bench marking is required–Receipt for services-Addition was made without examining the provision of S.37(1)–Matter remanded.