“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

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

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

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

D.C.I.T., Circle-13(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Singhal Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 928/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Kishore, CITFor Respondent: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AR

Section 133(6)Section 250

further submission that the Assessing Officer takes a stand that the transaction of the sale of the land itself is a benami transaction and consequently, the burden on the Assessing Officer is much more and the Assessing Officer has not discharged the burden cast upon him by his own action ... claiming the transaction is a benami transaction. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be upheld. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) at page

Jatin Garg, Chandigarh vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1019/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69

which have no relevance to the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. Sh. Jatin Garg is neither beneficial owner nor beneficiary in the alleged benami transaction case. He gave the money on 23.05.2017 through banking channels to proprietorship concern of Sh. Sanjit Singh Randhawa and the same was received back ... transaction for making addition u/s 69 of the Act. It was submitted that the appellant is neither beneficial owner nor beneficiary in the alleged benami transaction case, he gave the money on 23.05.2017 through banking channels to proprietorship concern of Sh. Sanjit Singh Randhawa and the same was received back

Erode District Tractor Owners Association, Erode vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 2516/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 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 ि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 Colathur N. Ram, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 34(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of what we have observed hereinabove

ITA 1464/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54

itself, the same meaning may be attributed even in the changed situation.” 16. In this background, the submission with regard to the principle of Benami transaction based upon the Supreme Court judgments in Bhim Singh (dead) by L.R.s and another..vs..Kan Singh; AIR 1980 S.C. 727 and The Controller ... unacceptable. The intention, as well as, transaction on record makes the position very clear. In no way this can be said to be a Benami transaction. The facts and circumstances are totally distinct and distinguishable of the judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee in all respects

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Vallabh Roopchand Bhanshali, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 889/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajgopal & Shri Gagan Goyalacit Circle 2(1) (1), R. No. 575, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400 020. ...... Appellant Vs. Shri Vallabh Roopchand Bhansali, 18Th Floor, 191, Dongarsi Road, Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400 006 Pan: Aabpb4198H ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ankush Kapoor, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri C. Balaram Murthy, Ld. AR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 250

said document. But where recital in such a document is tainted, the position would be different. For example the form of a benami transaction is deceptive. It employs various subterfuges in legal language. What is true of a tax avoidance scheme is also true of a benami transaction. In such ... transaction taking into account surrounding circumstances. It was held that the Court is entitled to go behind a transaction ignoring its form. In a benami transaction, a wholesome appreciation of evidences - documentary, oral and circumstantial is a requirement. In the process, the form of a transaction has to be evaluated

Shree Shiromani Project Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 106/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.106/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shree Shiromani Project Pvt. Ltd. ...……………………....………....Appellant C/O Advocate Amit Agarwal, 50D, Mukta Ram Babu Street, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700007. [Pan: Aabcv0376L] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 29, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order Dated 21St March, 2023 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant In Liminie Without Dealing With The Merits Of The Case & By Not Passing Order On The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Appellant Assessee Company Against The Impugned Assessment Order Dated 30.09.2021 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act

Section 147Section 250Section 68

above, I have reason to believe that the said amount of Rs.15,16,64,069/- was chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment under Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 which the meaning of Sec.147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the F.Y.2012-13 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14. Further an information

Shri Shivajirao R.Chavan, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1578/AHD/2006[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2001-02 Shivajirao R. Chavan Vs. Ito, Ward-13(2) M-327, Sector 4, K.K. Nagar Ahmedabad. Opp: Water Tank, Ghalodia Ahmedabad.

Section 147Section 250(6)

Ld.Counsel for the assessee of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in K. Mahim Udma (supra) casting an onerous burden on the party alleging benami transaction aptly covers the issue in hand, in favour of the assessee. In view of the same therefore there is no occasion to tax rental

Income Tax Officer, Koramangala Bangalore vs. Nadakrishna Thimmaiah, Bangalore

ITA 653/BANG/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bharath R., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

ITA Nos.130/Bang/2023 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore ITA No.653/Bang/2023 Nadakrishna Thimmaiah, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C

M/S. Spr Spirits Private Limited (Formerly Known As Spr Group Holdings Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

ITA 130/BANG/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bharath R., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

ITA Nos.130/Bang/2023 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore ITA No.653/Bang/2023 Nadakrishna Thimmaiah, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C

Imran Khan, Bhopal vs. The ITO2 (2), Bhyopal

In the result the issue No

ITA 168/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradimran Khan Ito 2(2) S/O Sh. Gulab Khan H. No.35 Bhopal Village-Inayatpura Kolar Board, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ckqpk5708M Assessee By Shri Niranjan Purandar Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.01.2024

Section 54B

that the subject agricultural lands were purchased in the name of wife & minor children and squarely allowed even under 2(9) of the Benami Transaction Prohibition Act 1988 and even under the amended Act passed in the year 2016. 6.The statutory recognition to purchase property in name of wife

Arun Soni, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 221/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 220 & 221/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Arun Soni Industrial Area, Tifra Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Ajeps8535K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Kumar Gautam, M/s. Saptrishi Infrastate and Saptrishi Infrastructure, the A.O called upon him to put forth an explanation with regard to the aforesaid impugned benami transactions. Although the assessee filed an explanation but the same did not find favour with the A.O. Accordingly, the A.O rejected the explanation

Arun Soni, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 220/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Ram Kripal Sisodia, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 110/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 144Section 69

Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022, which holds that Amendment to Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act,2016 is applicable prospectively and therefore transactions taking place prior to that cannot be treated as Benami as per Amendment ... Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022, which holds that Amendment to Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act,2016 is applicable prospectively and therefore transactions taking place prior to that cannot be treated as Benami as per Amendment

DCIT Central Circle-2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Asian Star Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2778/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Asian Star Company Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(3) Room No.803, 8Th Floor, 114-C, Mitta Court, Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca4856B Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ms. Vaishali More, Ars Revenue By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT DR

Section 133ASection 143Section 148

such deduction to establish that such payments were made for services rendered. It was submitted that it is not only the order of the Benami transaction act but also the order in case of the parties were rendered the services in whose hands the commission income has already been taxed ... nexus in the transaction for purchase of the subject properly as benami when examined on the touchstone of the crucial test of a benami transaction. In this connection, I must say that the nexus and the extent thereof may vary from case to case depending on the facts and circumstances

Amar Singh, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rewari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 115/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 54BSection 54F

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

ACIT, Circle-64(1), New Delhi vs. Gurnihal Singh Pirzada, Chandigarh

ITA 3952/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 3947/Del/2019, A.Y. 2008-09 Ita No.3952/Del/2019, A.Y. 2013-14

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

However, on the basis of information received from Punjab Vigilance Bureau regarding investment by assessee in the property and treating the same as benami transactions, reasons were recorded and notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued on 23.03.2015. The assessee filed the return of income ... above property that is Rs. 10,33,50,000/- is added back in the income of the assessee for FY 2008-09 being benami transaction." The remand Report has been summarized on the available record on assessment file.” 4. Consequently concluding that no notice u/s 143(2) was issued

ACIT, Circle-64(1), New Delhi vs. Gurnihal Singh Pirzada, Chandigarh

ITA 3947/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 3947/Del/2019, A.Y. 2008-09 Ita No.3952/Del/2019, A.Y. 2013-14

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Sandeep Sethi, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 155/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 115BSection 132(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Rajiv Nigotiya, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 154/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 115BSection 132(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Jatinder Kumar Suri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6808/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 194JSection 44ASection 69C

case), where the consideration is given by some person (i.e. the assessee) who is the beneficiary of such property, also require action under the Benami Transaction Prohibition Act. The entire loss claimed by the assessee on this ground is disallowed the transaction is treated as a sham transaction