<?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>2025 (1) TMI 607 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764545</link>
    <description>In PMLA proceedings, the Adjudicating Authority must supply the documents and material relied upon for its own independent satisfaction under Section 8(1) along with the show cause notice. The Tribunal held that this requirement does not automatically extend to the Enforcement Directorate&#039;s separate reasons to believe recorded under Section 17(1), unless the statute or binding authority expressly requires disclosure. It read the cited Delhi High Court decision as limited to the material supporting the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s own satisfaction, and noted that the ED&#039;s Section 17(1) reasons had not been finally directed to be disclosed. The challenge to refusal of that additional disclosure therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jan 2025 08:40:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=788430" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 607 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764545</link>
      <description>In PMLA proceedings, the Adjudicating Authority must supply the documents and material relied upon for its own independent satisfaction under Section 8(1) along with the show cause notice. The Tribunal held that this requirement does not automatically extend to the Enforcement Directorate&#039;s separate reasons to believe recorded under Section 17(1), unless the statute or binding authority expressly requires disclosure. It read the cited Delhi High Court decision as limited to the material supporting the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s own satisfaction, and noted that the ED&#039;s Section 17(1) reasons had not been finally directed to be disclosed. The challenge to refusal of that additional disclosure therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764545</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>