{"id":39262,"date":"2024-02-18T18:37:08","date_gmt":"2024-02-18T13:07:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/acit-v-goluguri-srirama-reddy-2023-295-taxman-231-sc-editorial-goluguri-srirama-reddy-2023-155-taxmann-com-196-telengana-hc\/"},"modified":"2025-04-14T08:22:39","modified_gmt":"2025-04-14T02:52:39","slug":"acit-v-goluguri-srirama-reddy-2023-295-taxman-231-sc-editorial-goluguri-srirama-reddy-2023-155-taxmann-com-196-telengana-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/acit-v-goluguri-srirama-reddy-2023-295-taxman-231-sc-editorial-goluguri-srirama-reddy-2023-155-taxmann-com-196-telengana-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"ACIT v. Goluguri Srirama Reddy (2023) 295 Taxman 231 \/(2024) 470 ITR 397  (SC) Editorial: Goluguri Srirama Reddy (2023) 155 taxmann.com 196 \/( 2024) 470 ITR 395  ( Telengana )( HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Petitioner challenged orders passed by Adjudicating Authority under section 26(3) in respect of property on the \u00a0ground that transaction for which provisional attachment order was passed and subsequently affirmed by Adjudicating Authority took place on 20-12-2014 much prior to coming into force of Benami Transactions (prohibition) (Amendment) Act, 2016 .High Court \u00a0held that \u00a02016 amendments were, in effect, creating new provisions and new offences and were not merely procedural in nature and, thus, 2016 Act could only be applied prospectively and not retroactively hence could not be initiated for transactions entered into prior to coming into force of 2016 Act.SLP of Revenue is dismissed . Referred ,\u00a0 \u00a0UOI \u00a0v. Ganpati Dealcom (P.) Ltd.\u00a0[2022] 289 Taxman 177\/447 ITR 108 (SC )<\/p>\n<p><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> The Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 <\/p>\n<p> S. 2(9) : Benami Transaction-  Provisional attachment &#8211;    Transactions entered into prior to coming into force of 2016 Act  -Order of High Court quashing the proceedings is affirmed \u2013 SLP of Revenue is dismissed .  [ S. 26(3) , Art .136  ] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39262","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allied-laws"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-adg","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39262","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39262"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39262\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":52813,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39262\/revisions\/52813"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39262"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39262"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39262"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}