<?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 1744 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197226</link>
    <description>The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to demonstrate the return of the advance payment received from the Trust and the legitimate acquisition of the property. The Tribunal upheld the attachment of the property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), concluding it was acquired from the proceeds of crime. All pending applications were closed, and parties were left to bear their own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Dec 2017 18:54:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=501851" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 1744 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197226</link>
      <description>The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to demonstrate the return of the advance payment received from the Trust and the legitimate acquisition of the property. The Tribunal upheld the attachment of the property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), concluding it was acquired from the proceeds of crime. All pending applications were closed, and parties were left to bear their own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197226</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>