Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Rajesh Katyal – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Department, New Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to show cause notice (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. prosecution must be prospective (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. writ petition allowed; scn quashed (Para 4 , 7) |
| 4. timeline of petitioner’s shares (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction for quashing and to set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 04th April, 2022 (`SCN') issued by the Respondent under Section 53 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, as amended by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 (the `Act of 2016'), which came into effect on 01st November 2016, against the Petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that SCN has been issued with respect to purchase of lands by M/s AK Infosystem Pvt. Ltd., (`the company') between the period from 2007 to 2010 and transfer of shares held by the Petitioner in the said company on 31st May, 2014. He states that the newly enacted provisions of the Act of 2016, which came into effect on 01st November, 2016, cannot be applied against the Petitioner retrospectively for the transactions which were admittedly undertaken prior to coming into effect of the said provi
The court established that the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, Section 53 applies prospectively, and actions based on pre-amendment transactions are invalid, reaffirming consti....
The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 prescribes substantive provisions and has a prospective effect, and concerned authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or....
Authorities cannot initiate criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings against a company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of....
Provisions under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act declared unconstitutional, leading to quashing of notices.
(1) Rejection of plaint – Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC can be taken up along with a preliminary objection and decided together by trial Court.(2) Admission of plaint is not automatic – ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a jurisdictional challenge under the Benami Act must demonstrate an ex facie erroneous assumption of jurisdiction by the authorities. The cour....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
