Benami s.46

Benami s.46 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section Benami s.46, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Porter Buildcon Pvt Ltd v Union of India High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I went to the High Court instead of the Tribunal and the adjudication order is now months old. Is my s.46 appeal dead?
  Not necessarily. The Delhi High Court relegated the petitioners to the appeal under s.46 after they gave up a challenge to the validity of the Act, held that the time the writ petition was pending is liable to be excluded under s.14 of the Limitation Act, fixed 28 February 2025 as the date by which the appeals were to be filed, and directed that appeals filed by then not be dismissed as barred by limitation or delay.
• Ambica Bullion v DCIT (BPU-1), Mumbai ITATCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  The benami attachment on my client's bank accounts rests on an investigation that never traced the people it names. Will the Tribunal simply release it?
  Not necessarily. Where both sides have left holes — the Initiating Officer having failed to trace the person said to control the benamidar companies or to establish how they were incorporated and operated, and the appellant having failed to produce a stock register or the underlying sale invoices — the Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter for re-investigation instead of deciding it, directed that it be completed preferably within six months, ordered status quo and directed the banks to convert the attached balances into fixed deposits in the meantime.

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.