<?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>2019 (4) TMI 2178 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461550</link>
    <description>SC tribunal ruled that seized properties under PMLA must be returned when prosecution complaint is not filed within mandatory 90-day period. The retention order lapsed due to statutory non-compliance, compelling the respondent to return items to appellant within three weeks. Decision focused strictly on procedural requirements without examining substantive case merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2025 14:41:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=813882" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 2178 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461550</link>
      <description>SC tribunal ruled that seized properties under PMLA must be returned when prosecution complaint is not filed within mandatory 90-day period. The retention order lapsed due to statutory non-compliance, compelling the respondent to return items to appellant within three weeks. Decision focused strictly on procedural requirements without examining substantive case merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461550</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>