Latest news with #ProhibitionofBenamiPropertyTransactionsAct
Time of India
10-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
SC halts MP high court order on Som Distilleries shares: Rs 350 cr benami asset sale stayed
Bhopal: In a significant intervention, the Supreme Court has stayed an interim order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had permitted the release and sale of equity shares worth Rs 350 crore linked to Som Distilleries Breweries & Wineries Ltd. The shares were earlier provisionally attached by the Income Tax Department's Benami Prohibition Unit (BPU), Bhopal, under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act (PBPT Act), Supreme Court's stay came in response to Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) filed by the BPU challenging the High Court's interim relief granted in Bana Singh v. Union of India & Others (WP No. 9187 of 2025).At the core of the dispute are 1.2 crore publicly listed shares of SDBWL, held in the names of eight alleged benamidars—employees and associates of the Som Group. These shares, valued at over Rs 380 crore as of March 2025, were found to be benami assets with the real ownership attributed to Jagdish Kumar Arora, promoter-director of Som provisional attachment was made under Section 24(4) of the PBPT Act by the Initiating Officer (IO), and later confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority (SAFEMA, Mumbai) under Section 26(3) in February 2025. Instead of appealing to the Appellate Tribunal under the Act, the alleged benamidars challenged the constitutional validity of the PBPT Act itself before the High this procedural bypass, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in its order dated March 27, 2025, allowed the release and sale of the attached benami shares, directing that an equal number of shares held by Arora and the company be attached instead—an action the Union government termed ultra vires and legally SLP filed in the apex court described the High Court's action as "beyond statutory powers," emphasizing that the PBPT Act does not allow substitution of attached benami property with other assets. Operation Sindoor Pak drones enter Indian airspace, explosions heard just hours after truce deal Sirens, explosions in border districts after Pak breaks deal: What we know so far 'What happened to ceasefire?' J&K CM after explosions heard across Srinagar According to the Act, the subject benami property must be specifically confiscated after due process—not swapped with other Centre argued that the High Court's relief effectively allowed the disposal of the very assets under scrutiny, risking irreversible financial loss to the exchequer. The shares, if sold, could render the entire legal process eight benamidars had previously attempted to pre-empt proceedings by filing writs even before the provisional attachment was issued—after mere show-cause notices under Section 24(1). These earlier petitions were dismissed by the High Court in March 2024, and subsequent SLPs were rejected by the Supreme Court in May department refused to comment on the matter. Notably, the constitutional validity of the PBPT Act is already under review by the Supreme Court, following the recall of its own 2022 judgment in Union of India vs. Ganpati Dealcom. The Centre pointed out that by allowing interim relief in the form of property sale, the High Court had essentially prejudged a matter sub-judice before the top court, undermining its the next High Court hearing due on May 9, the Supreme Court granted an urgent interim stay, preventing any further action under the High Court's order. This, the Centre argued, was critical to prevent the benami shares from being sold off, a move that would not only violate the statute but could frustrate the entire benami prosecution final decision on the SLP and the fate of the contested shares will be decided in further proceedings. For now, the apex court's stay protects the attached assets and preserves the integrity of the ongoing proceedings under the PBPT Act.
Time of India
09-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Supreme Court halts Madhya Pradesh HC order on Rs 350 crore Benami shares linked to Som Distilleries
Supreme Court BHOPAL: In a significant intervention, the Supreme Court has stayed an interim order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had permitted the release and sale of equity shares worth Rs 350 crore linked to Som Distilleries Breweries & Wineries Ltd. The shares were earlier provisionally attached by the Income Tax Department's Benami Prohibition Unit (BPU), Bhopal, under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act (PBPT Act), 1988. The Supreme Court's stay came in response to Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) filed by the BPU challenging the High Court's interim relief granted in Bana Singh v. Union of India & Others (WP No. 9187 of 2025). At the core of the dispute are 1.2 crore publicly listed shares of SDBWL, held in the names of eight alleged benamidars—employees and associates of the Som Group. These shares, valued at over Rs 380 crore as of March 2025, were found to be benami assets with the real ownership attributed to Jagdish Kumar Arora, promoter-director of Som Distilleries. Operation Sindoor Air siren warning sounded in Chandigarh, residents advised to stay indoors J&K, Punjab, Rajasthan on high alert after Pak's failed drone attacks Conflict widens, India targets Lahore, Pindi, Karachi after foiling multiple Pakistani attacks The provisional attachment was made under Section 24(4) of the PBPT Act by the Initiating Officer (IO), and later confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority (SAFEMA, Mumbai) under Section 26(3) in February 2025. Instead of appealing to the Appellate Tribunal under the Act, the alleged benamidars challenged the constitutional validity of the PBPT Act itself before the High Court. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in its order dated 27 March 2025, allowed the release and sale of the attached benami shares, directing that an equal number of shares held by Arora and the company be attached instead—an action the Union government termed ultra vires and legally untenable. The SLP filed in the apex court described the High Court's action as 'beyond statutory powers,' emphasising that the PBPT Act does not allow substitution of attached benami property with other assets. According to the Act, the subject benami property must be specifically confiscated after due process—not swapped with other holdings. The Centre argued that the High Court's relief effectively allowed the disposal of the very assets under scrutiny, risking irreversible financial loss to the exchequer. The shares, if sold, could render the entire legal process moot. The eight benamidars had previously attempted to pre-empt proceedings by filing writs even before the provisional attachment was issued—after mere show-cause notices under Section 24(1). These earlier petitions were dismissed by the High Court in March 2024, and subsequent SLPs were rejected by the Supreme Court in May 2024. The IT Department refused to comment on the matter. Notably, the constitutional validity of the PBPT Act is already under review by the Supreme Court, following the recall of its own 2022 judgment in Union of India vs. Ganpati Dealcom. The Centre pointed out that by allowing interim relief in the form of property sale, the High Court had essentially prejudged a matter sub judice before the top court, undermining its authority. With the next High Court hearing due on 9 May, the Supreme Court granted an urgent interim stay, preventing any further action under the High Court's order. This, the Centre argued, was critical to prevent the benami shares from being sold off—a move that would not only violate the statute but could frustrate the entire benami prosecution mechanism. The final decision on the SLP and the fate of the contested shares will be decided in further proceedings. For now, the apex court's stay protects the attached assets and preserves the integrity of the ongoing proceedings under the PBPT Act.
Time of India
09-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Supreme Court halts Madhya Pradesh HC order on Rs 350 core Benami shares linked to Som Distilleries
Supreme Court BHOPAL: In a significant intervention, the Supreme Court has stayed an interim order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had permitted the release and sale of equity shares worth Rs 350 crore linked to Som Distilleries Breweries & Wineries Ltd. The shares were earlier provisionally attached by the Income Tax Department's Benami Prohibition Unit (BPU), Bhopal, under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act (PBPT Act), 1988. The Supreme Court's stay came in response to Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) filed by the BPU challenging the High Court's interim relief granted in Bana Singh v. Union of India & Others (WP No. 9187 of 2025). At the core of the dispute are 1.2 crore publicly listed shares of SDBWL, held in the names of eight alleged benamidars—employees and associates of the Som Group. These shares, valued at over Rs 380 crore as of March 2025, were found to be benami assets with the real ownership attributed to Jagdish Kumar Arora, promoter-director of Som Distilleries. Operation Sindoor Conflict widens, India targets Lahore, Pindi, Karachi after foiling multiple Pakistani attacks Army foils Pakistan's attempts to send swarm drones across LoC Operation Sindoor: Several airports in India closed - check full list The provisional attachment was made under Section 24(4) of the PBPT Act by the Initiating Officer (IO), and later confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority (SAFEMA, Mumbai) under Section 26(3) in February 2025. Instead of appealing to the Appellate Tribunal under the Act, the alleged benamidars challenged the constitutional validity of the PBPT Act itself before the High Court. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in its order dated 27 March 2025, allowed the release and sale of the attached benami shares, directing that an equal number of shares held by Arora and the company be attached instead—an action the Union government termed ultra vires and legally untenable. The SLP filed in the apex court described the High Court's action as 'beyond statutory powers,' emphasising that the PBPT Act does not allow substitution of attached benami property with other assets. According to the Act, the subject benami property must be specifically confiscated after due process—not swapped with other holdings. The Centre argued that the High Court's relief effectively allowed the disposal of the very assets under scrutiny, risking irreversible financial loss to the exchequer. The shares, if sold, could render the entire legal process moot. The eight benamidars had previously attempted to pre-empt proceedings by filing writs even before the provisional attachment was issued—after mere show-cause notices under Section 24(1). These earlier petitions were dismissed by the High Court in March 2024, and subsequent SLPs were rejected by the Supreme Court in May 2024. The IT Department refused to comment on the matter. Notably, the constitutional validity of the PBPT Act is already under review by the Supreme Court, following the recall of its own 2022 judgment in Union of India vs. Ganpati Dealcom. The Centre pointed out that by allowing interim relief in the form of property sale, the High Court had essentially prejudged a matter sub judice before the top court, undermining its authority. With the next High Court hearing due on 9 May, the Supreme Court granted an urgent interim stay, preventing any further action under the High Court's order. This, the Centre argued, was critical to prevent the benami shares from being sold off—a move that would not only violate the statute but could frustrate the entire benami prosecution mechanism. The final decision on the SLP and the fate of the contested shares will be decided in further proceedings. For now, the apex court's stay protects the attached assets and preserves the integrity of the ongoing proceedings under the PBPT Act.
Time of India
05-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Tribunal upholds I-T attaching 900 accounts in Buldana Coop case
Finding merit in the Income-Tax department's case against alleged irregularities at Buldana Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd , an appellate tribunal under Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act (SAFEMA) recently upheld the attachment of around 900 suspicious bank accounts . #Pahalgam Terrorist Attack Pakistan's economy has much more to lose than India's due to the ongoing tensions, warns Moody's Ratings The day Pakistan got the power to poke India FM Sitharaman meets ADB chief and Italian FM, discusses economic issues; no mention of Pakistan The accounts were attached under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act (PBPTA) by the Nagpur unit during the course of its investigation and the same were confirmed by the adjudicating authority (AA). The search operation by the department had allegedly revealed suspicious deposits in numerous accounts at the cooperative society. Funds of over ₹52 crore were found to be connected to PWD contracts. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Villas For Sale in Dubai Might Surprise You Villas In Dubai | Search Ads Get Rates Undo The society came under I-T scanner during an investigation of its loan to a Nanded-based sugar mill connected with former chief minister Ashok Chavan. He had denied the allegations and said all banking norms were followed. Chavan, a former Congress leader, joined the BJP in 2024. The probe had found that 900 accounts were opened; of this 718 were newly opened non-PAN accounts, 53 old inactive accounts, 118 non-PAN accounts in another branch. The deposits in these accounts followed suspicious patterns structured to keep individual transactions below ₹2 lakh The probe further revealed that the beneficiary of the amount deposited is one SAMRAT. Live Events In September , 2021, the department carried out a search and survey action on premises linked to builders Prashant Nilawar and Jayant Hiralal Shah, who were alleged to be acting as middlemen/liaison in the Public Works Department (PWD) of Maharashtra. Both of them run business of real estate and construction in the name of M/s Rucha Group and M/s Jairaj Group . "The modus operandi of cash collection from HAM works and transfer and posting of officers/engineers of PWD was unearthed in the search. The benami cash transaction of ₹52.19 crore was found with the co-operative society," the I-T had contented. "The document/summary sheet was found stored in the photo gallery of iPhone found in the custody of CA Shri Nilesh Toshniwal."
Time of India
25-04-2025
- Business
- Time of India
In Mangar ‘forest', two I-T dept attachment notices spring up
1 2 Gurgaon: Mangar's flora has seen two additions – signboards on which are scribbled land attachment notices from the income-tax department. The notices, which were originally issued in 2022 but were put up at the site only this month, proclaim that 430 acres of land in Mangar have been attached as benami property. The notices underline both the peculiarity of Mangar – a protected pristine forest that is not legally recognised as one – and the oddity of the larger Aravalis that it is part of. Most of Aravali land is privately owned, making the revenue department, and not the forest department, its custodian. Private ownership has been the primary cause of degradation of the Aravalis over decades because of large-scale construction. You Can Also Check: Gurgaon AQI | Weather in Gurgaon | Bank Holidays in Gurgaon | Public Holidays in Gurgaon The land in question is part of the Mangar Bani grove and its buffer zone, a 1,200-acre stretch along the Delhi-Haryana border that was notified as a 'no-construction zone' by Haryana govt in 2016. "This property i.e. 430 acres in village Mangar, Faridabad, has been attached by Benami Prohibition Unit (Chandigarh) of Income Tax department under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, vice order dated 29.03.2022 passed by adjudicating authority," the boards put up on April 15 read. The attachment notice of March 2022 adds that the 430 acres are held by "benamidars" (nominal owners) for "beneficial owners (actual controllers)". The notices name the firms Kenwood Mercantile, Goodfaith Builders, M/s Peakwood Realty, M/s Agrim Infratech, and individuals Lal Chand Bansal and Shakuntala Rani as nominal owners. Real estate company M3M India and six other individuals are named as beneficiaries. Asked about the case, which is currently in Punjab and Haryana high court, a spokesperson for the realtor said on Friday the attached land is "proprietarily owned by the promoters of M3M Group". "The matter is currently sub judice, and we are optimistic about a favourable outcome. Furthermore, we affirm that there is no element or component of benami transactions involved in this regard," the spokesperson said. This land has, however, been involved in controversies even before the benami case. In 2016, National Green Tribunal (NGT) denied M3M's claim that the land owned by it in Mangar was agricultural, not Aravali forest. NGT referred to two surveys by the forest department and Forest Survey of India (FSI) to conclude that this was densely vegetated land. "125 to 175 acres fall in Manger Bani sacred forest and the rest is in the surrounding areas recorded in the revenue records as gair mumkin pahar (uncultivable hills)… The area claimed by respondents 6 to 8 is predominantly covered by open dense forest. It satisfies all the criterions of a forest," NGT's order of March 2016 read. A few months later, the same year, on the directions of NCR Planning Board, Haryana govt issued a notification to ban construction in 600 acres of the core Mangar Bani zone and another 600 acres, which it earmarked as its 'buffer zone'. The only forest of its kind in the Aravalis, Mangar has no legal recognition as a forest because Haryana has not defined forests. Hence, provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act are not applicable to it. Going by the Supreme Court order to states to follow the dictionary meaning of the forest, Mangar should be protected under FCA. Experts told TOI it was this lack of this 'forest' tag that over the years had facilitated splintering of ownership of land, allowing ownership to change hands. "Even after three decades of Supreme Court orders to identify forests, Haryana has not been able to start the process. Supreme Court in the 2011 Lafarge judgment and the 1996 Godavarman case directed all states to identify forests as per their dictionary meaning. This case shows how the rich and powerful have bought Aravali forest areas in Haryana," retired Indian forest service officer MD Sinha, former chief conservator of forests for south Haryana, told TOI. Sinha said that in such a situation, govt "should not deal with semantics of what constitutes a forest" but focus on "conserving whatever forest Haryana has left". Chetan Agarwal, a forest analyst, too said the main concern was that of "legal status" of forests. "Forest status is still hanging. Besides, SC's orders to give ownership of village common land to panchayats have not been implemented. This is one land parcel that the I-T department should conserve and secure for future generations," he said. In the 2011 Lafarge order, which was linked to environmental approvals given for mining in Meghalaya, Supreme Court had directed all states to identify and map all forest-like areas. Preceding this ruling was the 1996 TN Godavarman case, which said that forests must be recognised on the dictionary definition of 'forest'. This meant that any area with characteristics of forests must be protected under FCA, regardless of the land's status in govt records. This concept, called 'deemed' forest, effectively widened the scope of FCA. The top court, while hearing petitions in March this year, reiterated its directions given in the Lafarge order and told all states to identify forest areas and submit their findings to the central govt in six months. State officials had told TOI earlier this month that Haryana govt has formed committees to work on the 'dictionary definition' of forests, but they can start the process only after another panel finalises a definition of 'forest'. "The committee will soon establish criteria for 'forest' definition to ensure that Mangar Bani and similar forest-like areas across Haryana receive protection under FCA. This is crucial, as these areas currently lack the necessary legal support to prevent encroachment. We had a meeting recently and one more is planned next month. Soon, we will be able to reach a decision on the criteria," Vineet Garg, principal chief conservator of forests, said on Friday.
