<?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>2024 (9) TMI 118 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757874</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal for SAFEMA at New Delhi set aside the seizure of Rs. 33,00,000/- from the appellant&#039;s residential premises. The seizure arose from investigations into DHFL loan misuse and siphoning, where appellant companies were identified as loan beneficiaries. The tribunal found that the seized cash was legitimately withdrawn from personal bank accounts for medical emergencies during COVID-19, supported by bank certificates. The respondent directorate failed to establish any link between the seized amount and proceeds of crime or demonstrate the appellant&#039;s nexus with criminal proceeds. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2024 08:18:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=766408" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 118 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757874</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal for SAFEMA at New Delhi set aside the seizure of Rs. 33,00,000/- from the appellant&#039;s residential premises. The seizure arose from investigations into DHFL loan misuse and siphoning, where appellant companies were identified as loan beneficiaries. The tribunal found that the seized cash was legitimately withdrawn from personal bank accounts for medical emergencies during COVID-19, supported by bank certificates. The respondent directorate failed to establish any link between the seized amount and proceeds of crime or demonstrate the appellant&#039;s nexus with criminal proceeds. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757874</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>