<?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 (2) TMI 107 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765561</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi dismissed an appeal challenging a Provisional Attachment Order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The case involved allegations of unfair selection processes for Assistant Teachers in primary schools, with charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and IPC provisions. The appellant failed to justify large unexplained transactions in bank accounts or provide adequate business details. Directors were found to be dummy entities with no knowledge of firm operations. The tribunal concluded that attachment of bank accounts was justified due to insufficient evidence of legitimate fund sources.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2025 08:46:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=795197" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 107 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765561</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi dismissed an appeal challenging a Provisional Attachment Order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The case involved allegations of unfair selection processes for Assistant Teachers in primary schools, with charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and IPC provisions. The appellant failed to justify large unexplained transactions in bank accounts or provide adequate business details. Directors were found to be dummy entities with no knowledge of firm operations. The tribunal concluded that attachment of bank accounts was justified due to insufficient evidence of legitimate fund sources.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765561</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>