<?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>1994 (11) TMI 366 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152053</link>
    <description>Property is liable to forfeiture under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 only where a nexus is shown between the asset and the detenu or convict&#039;s illegal activity. The property here had been acquired and improved years before the husband&#039;s smuggling conduct surfaced, and no material linked the asset to illegal income or activity. The statutory reach extends to properties held by relatives only when acquisition is traceable to the convict, and the long lapse of time made documentary proof expectations unrealistic. On those facts, the property was not liable to forfeiture and the forfeiture order could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2013 10:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169091" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (11) TMI 366 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152053</link>
      <description>Property is liable to forfeiture under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 only where a nexus is shown between the asset and the detenu or convict&#039;s illegal activity. The property here had been acquired and improved years before the husband&#039;s smuggling conduct surfaced, and no material linked the asset to illegal income or activity. The statutory reach extends to properties held by relatives only when acquisition is traceable to the convict, and the long lapse of time made documentary proof expectations unrealistic. On those facts, the property was not liable to forfeiture and the forfeiture order could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152053</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>