“benami transaction”
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
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.
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.
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.
