https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765562 The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi partially allowed the appeal challenging seizure orders under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The Tribunal held that bank lockers already seized by CBI could not be seized again by the respondent authority under Section 17(1) of PMLA, as there was no possibility of concealment or tampering when lockers were already under CBI seizure. The seizure of 3.2 kg gold was also deemed unjustified, considering CBDT circular provisions allowing women to possess specified quantities of gold. The Tribunal ruled that properties under seizure by one authority cannot be seized again by another unless released by the initial authority, leading to partial interference with the impugned order. en-us Thu, 09 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Feb 2025 08:46:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765562 The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi partially allowed the appeal challenging seizure orders under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The Tribunal held that bank lockers already seized by CBI could not be seized again by the respondent authority under Section 17(1) of PMLA, as there was no possibility of concealment or tampering when lockers were already under CBI seizure. The seizure of 3.2 kg gold was also deemed unjustified, considering CBDT circular provisions allowing women to possess specified quantities of gold. The Tribunal ruled that properties under seizure by one authority cannot be seized again by another unless released by the initial authority, leading to partial interference with the impugned order. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 09 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765562