Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
AT affirmed the provisional attachment order in a money laundering case involving fraudulent investment schemes. The tribunal rejected appellant's challenges, finding: (1) predicate offenses were substantiated through multiple FIRs and prosecution complaints, (2) section 420 IPC was a scheduled offense since 2009, and (3) substantial evidence existed showing over 200 crores fraudulently collected from public through deceptive housing and investment plans. The court emphasized that burden of proof lies with appellant to disclose property acquisition sources, and provisional attachment was justified under statutory provisions to prevent potential property concealment or transfer. Appeal was consequently dismissed, upholding the original attachment order.
AT affirmed the provisional attachment order in a money laundering case involving fraudulent investment schemes. The tribunal rejected appellant's challenges, finding: (1) predicate offenses were substantiated through multiple FIRs and prosecution complaints, (2) section 420 IPC was a scheduled offense since 2009, and (3) substantial evidence existed showing over 200 crores fraudulently collected from public through deceptive housing and investment plans. The court emphasized that burden of proof lies with appellant to disclose property acquisition sources, and provisional attachment was justified under statutory provisions to prevent potential property concealment or transfer. Appeal was consequently dismissed, upholding the original attachment order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
