<?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 (6) TMI 930 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772817</link>
    <description>SC analyzed PMLA seizure of jewellery where appellant was not named in FIR. Court held that mere familial connection does not justify property retention as proceeds of crime. Prior tax disclosures negated criminal proceeds presumption. Authorities failed to produce evidence challenging legitimate ownership. SC ordered jewellery release, emphasizing verification obligations and burden of proof requirements under PMLA.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2025 06:47:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=829067" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 930 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772817</link>
      <description>SC analyzed PMLA seizure of jewellery where appellant was not named in FIR. Court held that mere familial connection does not justify property retention as proceeds of crime. Prior tax disclosures negated criminal proceeds presumption. Authorities failed to produce evidence challenging legitimate ownership. SC ordered jewellery release, emphasizing verification obligations and burden of proof requirements under PMLA.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772817</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>