<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (8) TMI 696 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112636</link>
    <description>Properties belonging to notified persons are subject to automatic attachment under section 3(3) of the Special Court Act from the notification date, irrespective of when they were acquired or whether they can be linked to tainted securities-transaction funds. Section 4(1) concerns property bought by a notified person in another person&#039;s name using tainted funds during the relevant window period; where notified persons themselves purchased property through family members or front entities, the attachment regime under section 3 applies. Inadequate consideration of the appellants&#039; submissions and audit material on liabilities, assets, sale and attachment required the impugned order to be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 11:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149652" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 696 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112636</link>
      <description>Properties belonging to notified persons are subject to automatic attachment under section 3(3) of the Special Court Act from the notification date, irrespective of when they were acquired or whether they can be linked to tainted securities-transaction funds. Section 4(1) concerns property bought by a notified person in another person&#039;s name using tainted funds during the relevant window period; where notified persons themselves purchased property through family members or front entities, the attachment regime under section 3 applies. Inadequate consideration of the appellants&#039; submissions and audit material on liabilities, assets, sale and attachment required the impugned order to be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112636</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>