<?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>2023 (6) TMI 1436 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458084</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal SAFEMA dismissed an appeal challenging refusal to provide copies of seized records before filing reply to show cause notice under PMLA Section 8(1). The Tribunal held that seized records can be retained for maximum 365 days during investigation or until proceedings conclude. Section 8(1) provisions do not refer to seized records, and the Adjudicating Authority need not rely on seized records for determining their retention beyond 180 days. No natural justice violation occurred as the Authority provided copies of all documents it intended to rely upon for adjudication. The appellants&#039; contention that effective reply required copies of seized records was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2024 07:30:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=772033" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (6) TMI 1436 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458084</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal SAFEMA dismissed an appeal challenging refusal to provide copies of seized records before filing reply to show cause notice under PMLA Section 8(1). The Tribunal held that seized records can be retained for maximum 365 days during investigation or until proceedings conclude. Section 8(1) provisions do not refer to seized records, and the Adjudicating Authority need not rely on seized records for determining their retention beyond 180 days. No natural justice violation occurred as the Authority provided copies of all documents it intended to rely upon for adjudication. The appellants&#039; contention that effective reply required copies of seized records was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458084</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>