Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

August 2026

Kaluram Berva vs. Initiating Officer, Pune: Properties acquired for a company’s benefit in an individual’s name using company funds constitute benami transactions despite legal caste-related restrictions.

By Jagdish Punjabi, Chartered Accountant | Ritu Punjabi, Advocate
Reading Time 6 mins

3. [2026] 183 taxmann.com 459 (SAFEMA - New Delhi)

Kaluram Berva v. Initiating Officer, Pune

Date of Order : 27.01.2026

Property acquired in the name of the Appellant with consideration provided by PMPL for the future benefit of PMPL constituted a benami transaction under section 2(9)(A) of the Act.

The plea that the Appellant held the property in a fiduciary capacity was untenable since title had been conclusively transferred through registered sale deeds, which was inconsistent with fiduciary holding.

Further also, the use of name of a scheduled caste individual owing to the Rajasthan Revenue Laws did not take the transaction outside the mischief of the Act.

Property held by a benamidar after the amendment w.e.f. 1.11.2016, though acquired prior to the amendment, continued to be covered by the provisions of the PBPTA in view of the decision in Prism Scan, Accordingly,- the provisional attachment was not invalid merely because the acquisition pre-dated the amendment.

FACTS

The present batch of appeals was preferred by

You May Also Like