← All Phrases

“benami transaction”

MiscellaneousBenami ActBenami Act47 judgments

The decision most relied on for benami transaction is Krishnanand Agnihotri v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1 SCC 816), cited in 38 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on benami transaction

Krishnanand Agnihotri v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
1 SCC 816 · 1977 · Supreme Court
38
citing judgments

The burden of proving a transaction to be benami, or that the apparent owner is not the real owner, rests strictly on the party asserting it, requiring definite evidence or circumstances that reasonably infer the fact, not mere suspicion.

Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal v. CIT
130 ITR 244 · 1981 · Supreme Court
15
citing judgments

Income can be taxed in the hands of the person to whom it actually belongs, even if it is shown by someone else and assessed, and there is nothing in law to prevent the revenue from doing so. The return of capital gains by two sellers has no consequence if it is to give effect to benami transactions.

3. Prakash Narain v. CIT
134 ITR 364 · High Court
12
citing judgments

The burden of proving that a transaction is benami rests on the person asserting it to be so. Mere suspicion or presumption is insufficient; concrete evidence is required.

Judgments citing benami transaction

Rajendra Sahu, Katni vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Katni

ITA 163/JAB/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR 1
Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 69

assessee. (4) The Ld CIT (A) erred in law and facts of the case in sustaining the order, when the hon'ble Tribunal for Benami transactions has released the property and given relief to alleged benamidar and alleged beneficial owner. Copy of order was filed on record

Rajendra Sahu, Katni vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Katni

ITA 162/JAB/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Rajendra Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ram Manohar Lohiya Ward No. 4, Behind Katni Durga Hospital, Adarsh Colony, Katni Pan: Auvps4330A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr 1 Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 20.10.2023 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act On 27.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1) The Order Passed By The Ld Cit (A) Is Bad In Law & Facts, Void Ab Initio & Without Jurisdiction. (2) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Order, When Notice Issued U/S 148 Is Defective. There Is No Application Of Mind Of Ld Ao & Also Of Sanctioning Authority. (3) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Order, When Assessee Made Specific Request To Share Copies Of All The Statement Recorded By The Investigation Wing Regarding The Sale Of Properties. These Copies Were Not Given Inspite Of Using Them Against The Assessee. (4) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Order, When The Hon'Ble Tribunal For Benami Transactions Has Released The Property & Given Relief To Alleged Benamidar & Alleged Beneficial Owner. Copy Of Order Was Filed On Record. (5) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs 88,52,740/-U/S 69. 1 A.Y. 2013-14 Rajendra Sahu (6) The Appellant Reserves The Right To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR 1
Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 69

assessee. (4) The Ld CIT (A) erred in law and facts of the case in sustaining the order, when the hon'ble Tribunal for Benami transactions has released the property and given relief to alleged benamidar and alleged beneficial owner. Copy of order was filed on record

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2519/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 139Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

finance business. It was stated that the assessee being studied only up to 10th standard. It submitted that assessee had received notices under the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and out of fear and anxiety went into hiding. It was stated that deponent was completely unaware of the notices being ... person. There was requisition of money seized amounting to Rs.99.75 lakhs u/s.132A of the Act. The assessee was in receipt of notices under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. It is stated that on receipt of said notices, the assessee went into hiding and was completely unaware of the notice

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2518/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 139Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

finance business. It was stated that the assessee being studied only up to 10th standard. It submitted that assessee had received notices under the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and out of fear and anxiety went into hiding. It was stated that deponent was completely unaware of the notices being ... person. There was requisition of money seized amounting to Rs.99.75 lakhs u/s.132A of the Act. The assessee was in receipt of notices under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. It is stated that on receipt of said notices, the assessee went into hiding and was completely unaware of the notice

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2517/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 139Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

finance business. It was stated that the assessee being studied only up to 10th standard. It submitted that assessee had received notices under the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and out of fear and anxiety went into hiding. It was stated that deponent was completely unaware of the notices being ... person. There was requisition of money seized amounting to Rs.99.75 lakhs u/s.132A of the Act. The assessee was in receipt of notices under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. It is stated that on receipt of said notices, the assessee went into hiding and was completely unaware of the notice

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 2516/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Chennai - 600 001. Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Seven Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai-18, All Dated 11.08.2025, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called `The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2015-16 To 2021-22. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 139Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2515/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 139Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

finance business. It was stated that the assessee being studied only up to 10th standard. It submitted that assessee had received notices under the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and out of fear and anxiety went into hiding. It was stated that deponent was completely unaware of the notices being ... person. There was requisition of money seized amounting to Rs.99.75 lakhs u/s.132A of the Act. The assessee was in receipt of notices under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. It is stated that on receipt of said notices, the assessee went into hiding and was completely unaware of the notice

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-194), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2514/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 139Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

finance business. It was stated that the assessee being studied only up to 10th standard. It submitted that assessee had received notices under the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and out of fear and anxiety went into hiding. It was stated that deponent was completely unaware of the notices being ... person. There was requisition of money seized amounting to Rs.99.75 lakhs u/s.132A of the Act. The assessee was in receipt of notices under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. It is stated that on receipt of said notices, the assessee went into hiding and was completely unaware of the notice

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2513/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 139Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

finance business. It was stated that the assessee being studied only up to 10th standard. It submitted that assessee had received notices under the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and out of fear and anxiety went into hiding. It was stated that deponent was completely unaware of the notices being ... person. There was requisition of money seized amounting to Rs.99.75 lakhs u/s.132A of the Act. The assessee was in receipt of notices under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. It is stated that on receipt of said notices, the assessee went into hiding and was completely unaware of the notice

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Mohd Rizwan, Delhi

ITA 3535/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Income Tax Officer, Delhi. (Appellant)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 80C

present case are different. In the case of Golcha Prop Pvt Ltd 227 ITR 391 (Raj) (supra),the issue was related to benami transaction and parties were traceable. Relevant part of this judgement is reproduced below "12. On the basis of the above circumstances which were taken note

Hoshiyari, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rewari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed”

ITA 5864/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Hoshiyari C/O Anu Jain & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Company, 272 R, First Floor, Ward-1, Near Palika Complex, Model Rewari. Town, Rewari (Haryana) Pin: 123 401 Pan :Bmdpd2079Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250Section 54

name of assessee’s wife and sons who had no source of income. Thus, it appears to be a case of benami transaction. The ld. CIT(A) held that the land should be in the name of the assessee who has sold the property to make it eligible for deduction

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

The appeals of the assessee are disposed off as under :

ITA 399/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 115BSection 153ASection 69

branch were not camed out by Shri Ram Singh Meena but were made by Shin Om Prakash Gupta only. Thus, all these transactions are benami transactions and the money kept in this bank account is a benami property of Shri Om Prakash Gupta 4.5 As regards the contention ... branch were not camed out by Shri Ram Singh Meena but were made by Shin Om Prakash Gupta only. Thus, all these transactions are benami transactions and the money kept in this bank account is a benami property of Shri Om Prakash Gupta 4.5 As regards the contention

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 396/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 153ASection 69

branch were not camed out by Shri Ram Singh Meena but were made by Shin Om Prakash Gupta only. Thus, all these transactions are benami transactions and the money kept in this bank account is a benami property of Shri Om Prakash Gupta 4.5 As regards the contention ... controlled by Sh Rachit was not denied in the reply. It was stated in the reply inter alia that transactions with him are not benami transactions because they are accounted for and loans are given on interest basis to him. Why all these critical and confidential banking documents showing transactions

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 395/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 153ASection 69

branch were not camed out by Shri Ram Singh Meena but were made by Shin Om Prakash Gupta only. Thus, all these transactions are benami transactions and the money kept in this bank account is a benami property of Shri Om Prakash Gupta 4.5 As regards the contention ... controlled by Sh Rachit was not denied in the reply. It was stated in the reply inter alia that transactions with him are not benami transactions because they are accounted for and loans are given on interest basis to him. Why all these critical and confidential banking documents showing transactions

Inder Kumar Nigotiya, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward, 1 (1), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1011/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

scheme received immunity from prosecution under the Income Tax Act and the Wealth Tax Act. Certain conditions also provided immunity from the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Since the assets have been disclosed by the assessee under the IDS, 2016, therefore, disclosure scheme Rule 4 allows the assessee to file ... scheme received immunity from prosecution under the Income-tax Act and the Wealth-tax Act. Certain conditions also provided immunity from the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Since, the assets were disclosed by the assessee under the IDS, 2016, Rule 4 allowed the assessee to file a declaration of income

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat vs. Borda Brothers, Surat

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 1068/SRT/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

seizure action was carried out in the Shri Rajendra Jain Group on 03.10.2013 which proved that the said group, through a layer of benami transaction was engaged in providing accommodation entries to various parties in respect of bogus unsecured loans, bogus purchases etc. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Borda Brothers, Varachha Road, Surat

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 1062/SRT/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

seizure action was carried out in the Shri Rajendra Jain Group on 03.10.2013 which proved that the said group, through a layer of benami transaction was engaged in providing accommodation entries to various parties in respect of bogus unsecured loans, bogus purchases etc. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted

Sh. Trilok Chand Sain, Dausa vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1264/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144rSection 148Section 250Section 263

under :- “ 1. Introduction and background This submission is being filed in support of the assessment order of Trilok Chand Saini and the determination of benami transactions involving Babulal Bairwa and M/s. Gupteshwar Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue submits that the real investor behind the immovable properties purchased was Trilok Chand ... further reinforces that the assessee’s conduct is meant to avoid scrutiny and ultimate taxation. 3. Establishing Trilok Chand Saini as the Real Investor (Benami Transaction Analysis) (A) Financial Capacity of Name Lenders – No Justification of Investments 7 Shri Trilok Chand Sain, Dausa. 1. Babulal Bairwa – A Person

Sh. Trilok Chand Sain, Dausa vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Alwar

ITA 1266/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C Parwal, FCAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(c)

made in cash by the assessee. Further, as per the report/ information in possession of the department the assessee has been alleged of the benami transactions and hence it is a subject matter of deep investigation. In light of the above facts and on the basis of material available ... made in cash by the assessee. Further, as per the report/ information in possession of the department the assesse has been alleged of the benami transactions and hence it is a subject matter of deep investigation. In light of the above facts and on the basis of material available

Sh. Trilok Chand Sain, Dausa vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Alwar

ITA 1265/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C Parwal, FCAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(c)

made in cash by the assessee. Further, as per the report/ information in possession of the department the assessee has been alleged of the benami transactions and hence it is a subject matter of deep investigation. In light of the above facts and on the basis of material available ... made in cash by the assessee. Further, as per the report/ information in possession of the department the assesse has been alleged of the benami transactions and hence it is a subject matter of deep investigation. In light of the above facts and on the basis of material available