Benami Act s.24

Benami Act s.24 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section Benami Act s.24, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Alishan Complex P Ltd v Initiating Officer High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The benami attachment rests on a retracted statement and they refused cross-examination. Is that evidence?
  No. An untested and retracted statement, standing alone, is no evidence at all on which a benami finding can rest. Where such a statement is the only material against a party, the power in s.19(1)(b) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act to summon and examine the witness stops being discretionary and becomes a duty, and income-tax assessment findings on the source and genuineness of the funds are relevant material the Initiating Officer is bound to consider.
• Union of India v Ganpati Dealcom P Ltd Supreme CourtCuts both waysOverruled
  Can benami proceedings be taken against me for a property bought before October 2016?
  On the current position, yes, because the judgment that said otherwise has gone. In 2022 the Supreme Court held that the 2016 amendment to the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act created new substantive offences and could not operate on transactions before 25 October 2016, struck down s.3(2) and s.5 of the un-amended 1988 Act, and directed pre-amendment prosecutions and confiscations to be quashed. On 18 October 2024 it recalled that judgment in its entirety, holding that constitutional validity had been decided with no lis and no contest between the parties, and restored the appeal for fresh hearing.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.