https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92116 AT allowed the appeal and disposed it, holding that the impugned provisional attachment order expired by force of s.8(3)(a) of the PMLA, 2002 because the investigation was not completed within 365 days and no prosecution was pending before a court on the 365th day. The Tribunal concluded that an interim order of the Apex Court did not operate to suspend the time-limit for completion of investigation, because the respondent nevertheless filed the prosecution complaint during the interim period and could not show a restraint on such filing; consequently the continuation of the attachment could not be sustained and the impugned order stands terminated. en-us Tue, 02 Sep 2025 08:01:26 +0530 Tue, 02 Sep 2025 08:01:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92116 AT allowed the appeal and disposed it, holding that the impugned provisional attachment order expired by force of s.8(3)(a) of the PMLA, 2002 because the investigation was not completed within 365 days and no prosecution was pending before a court on the 365th day. The Tribunal concluded that an interim order of the Apex Court did not operate to suspend the time-limit for completion of investigation, because the respondent nevertheless filed the prosecution complaint during the interim period and could not show a restraint on such filing; consequently the continuation of the attachment could not be sustained and the impugned order stands terminated. Highlights Money Laundering Tue, 02 Sep 2025 08:01:26 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92116