<?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>2016 (1) TMI 1349 - ATPMLA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198840</link>
    <description>Procedural defects in service of notice and non-supply of complaint material did not vitiate the confirmation of provisional attachment where the appellant appeared, filed a reply, had access to the relied upon documents, and showed no actual prejudice; remand was therefore unnecessary. On merits, the Tribunal found a sufficient chain of transactions indicating accommodation entries and proceeds of crime, while the appellant failed to explain the source of the investments or rebut the allegations with supporting material. The document states that the attachment was sustained because the substantive record independently supported a money-laundering linkage and the procedural objections did not justify interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Feb 2018 07:28:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508356" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 1349 - ATPMLA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198840</link>
      <description>Procedural defects in service of notice and non-supply of complaint material did not vitiate the confirmation of provisional attachment where the appellant appeared, filed a reply, had access to the relied upon documents, and showed no actual prejudice; remand was therefore unnecessary. On merits, the Tribunal found a sufficient chain of transactions indicating accommodation entries and proceeds of crime, while the appellant failed to explain the source of the investments or rebut the allegations with supporting material. The document states that the attachment was sustained because the substantive record independently supported a money-laundering linkage and the procedural objections did not justify interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198840</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>