<?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>2015 (12) TMI 1083 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269779</link>
    <description>The court allowed the civil miscellaneous appeals, setting aside the impugned orders. It concluded that the appellants successfully rebutted the presumption that the property was proceeds of crime. The respondent failed to establish any nexus between the appellants and the original fraudsters, and therefore, the property in the hands of the bona fide purchasers could not be attached.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=409945" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 1083 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269779</link>
      <description>The court allowed the civil miscellaneous appeals, setting aside the impugned orders. It concluded that the appellants successfully rebutted the presumption that the property was proceeds of crime. The respondent failed to establish any nexus between the appellants and the original fraudsters, and therefore, the property in the hands of the bona fide purchasers could not be attached.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269779</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>