https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777219 AT partially allowed the appeal. The tribunal held that penalties for non-reporting of 54 alleged counterfeit-note transactions must be assessed per transaction, not per monthly report; imposing Rs.5,40,000 was illegal and the minimum penalty per transaction is Rs.10,000. Separately, the tribunal set aside the Rs.2,00,000 penalty under Section 12A (Rs.1,00,000 each) because the appellant bank had replied and submitted the required report, which the Director, FIU had ignored. The remainder of the impugned order was upheld only to the extent consistent with these findings. en-us Wed, 06 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Aug 2025 08:41:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777219 AT partially allowed the appeal. The tribunal held that penalties for non-reporting of 54 alleged counterfeit-note transactions must be assessed per transaction, not per monthly report; imposing Rs.5,40,000 was illegal and the minimum penalty per transaction is Rs.10,000. Separately, the tribunal set aside the Rs.2,00,000 penalty under Section 12A (Rs.1,00,000 each) because the appellant bank had replied and submitted the required report, which the Director, FIU had ignored. The remainder of the impugned order was upheld only to the extent consistent with these findings. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 06 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777219