https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757022 The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA upheld property forfeiture orders against the appellant, rejecting multiple challenges. The tribunal ruled that SAFEMA proceedings are distinct from TADA proceedings and different statutory provisions apply separately. It held that Section 6 of SAFEMA does not require establishing nexus between detenue's income and property before issuing notices. The tribunal found no violation of natural justice principles as the same authority conducted hearings and passed orders. Regarding specific properties, the tribunal allowed challenge only for Flat No. 604 due to prior court decree, but rejected appeals for other properties including rented flats and commercial premises, finding insufficient evidence of legitimate income sources or proper documentation to substantiate ownership claims. en-us Wed, 24 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Aug 2024 11:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757022 The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA upheld property forfeiture orders against the appellant, rejecting multiple challenges. The tribunal ruled that SAFEMA proceedings are distinct from TADA proceedings and different statutory provisions apply separately. It held that Section 6 of SAFEMA does not require establishing nexus between detenue's income and property before issuing notices. The tribunal found no violation of natural justice principles as the same authority conducted hearings and passed orders. Regarding specific properties, the tribunal allowed challenge only for Flat No. 604 due to prior court decree, but rejected appeals for other properties including rented flats and commercial premises, finding insufficient evidence of legitimate income sources or proper documentation to substantiate ownership claims. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 24 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757022