Foreign portfolio investment liberalisation extends listed equity access to all individual persons resident outside India, subject to limit monitoring...
The Tribunal held that retention and continued freezing of immovable and movable properties could not rest on a non-speaking order that merely reproduced pleadings and recorded only prima facie observations. After considering the reply, hearing the parties and the material on record, the Adjudicating Authority had to independently determine whether any property was involved in money-laundering under section 8. Mere pendency of investigation was insufficient. The Tribunal also noted that the presumption under section 24(a) applies only after foundational facts are established and must remain rebuttable. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh de novo adjudication, with status quo to continue.
The Tribunal held that retention and continued freezing of immovable and movable properties could not rest on a non-speaking order that merely reproduced pleadings and recorded only prima facie observations. After considering the reply, hearing the parties and the material on record, the Adjudicating Authority had to independently determine whether any property was involved in money-laundering under section 8. Mere pendency of investigation was insufficient. The Tribunal also noted that the presumption under section 24(a) applies only after foundational facts are established and must remain rebuttable. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh de novo adjudication, with status quo to continue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
