Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The HC upheld the attachment order under Sections 5(1) and 8(1) of the PMLA, finding sufficient material to form a reason to believe that the impugned property constituted proceeds of crime linked to scheduled offences under Section 384 read with 120B IPC. The court held that the Enforcement Authority need not produce direct evidence; circumstantial and financial trail analysis suffice to establish a prima facie nexus. The appellants' contention regarding the source of acquisition was rejected due to failure to satisfactorily explain the properties' origin and timing relative to the commission of offences. The attachment was deemed a preventive measure, not a final guilt determination. The HC affirmed the correctness of the Appellate Tribunal's reasoning and dismissed the appeal, confirming the legality and necessity of the attachment order pending further investigation and trial.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
