<?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 1361 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759117</link>
    <description>Attachment and confirmation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were upheld where the record showed a credible money trail linking properties and share transactions to proceeds of crime. The Tribunal treated the land purchase and corporate investments as inconsistent with disclosed income and as accommodation entries routed through linked entities, indicating layering and integration of tainted funds. The appellants were found to have failed to prove lawful acquisition because explanations based on agricultural income, rent, loans, jewellery sale, streedhan and other sources lacked reliable proof and belated returns did not account for the consideration paid. The statutory presumptions therefore remained unrebutted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2024 08:01:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770296" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 1361 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759117</link>
      <description>Attachment and confirmation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were upheld where the record showed a credible money trail linking properties and share transactions to proceeds of crime. The Tribunal treated the land purchase and corporate investments as inconsistent with disclosed income and as accommodation entries routed through linked entities, indicating layering and integration of tainted funds. The appellants were found to have failed to prove lawful acquisition because explanations based on agricultural income, rent, loans, jewellery sale, streedhan and other sources lacked reliable proof and belated returns did not account for the consideration paid. The statutory presumptions therefore remained unrebutted.</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=759117</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>