<?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>Provisional attachment of 68% property upheld under PMLA amendments; Rs 11,41,800 identified as laundered proceeds</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93524</link>
    <description>The AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the provisional attachment of 68% of the immovable property, concluding that the PMLA amendments effective 15.02.2013 applied and that enforcement action was lawfully initiated post-amendment (ECIR registered 27.10.2015; PAO issued 26.07.2018, confirmed 11.01.2019). The Tribunal found sufficient evidence that the appellant knowingly handled proceeds of crime-cash deposits, inconsistent explanations about sales and transport, and reliance on false documentation-yielding identified laundered proceeds of Rs. 11,41,800.00. Reliance on contrary interim orders and family-settlement title were rejected; proceedings under the PMLA and attachment were sustained as legally valid and proportionate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2025 09:00:56 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2025 09:00:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=860109" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Provisional attachment of 68% property upheld under PMLA amendments; Rs 11,41,800 identified as laundered proceeds</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93524</link>
      <description>The AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the provisional attachment of 68% of the immovable property, concluding that the PMLA amendments effective 15.02.2013 applied and that enforcement action was lawfully initiated post-amendment (ECIR registered 27.10.2015; PAO issued 26.07.2018, confirmed 11.01.2019). The Tribunal found sufficient evidence that the appellant knowingly handled proceeds of crime-cash deposits, inconsistent explanations about sales and transport, and reliance on false documentation-yielding identified laundered proceeds of Rs. 11,41,800.00. Reliance on contrary interim orders and family-settlement title were rejected; proceedings under the PMLA and attachment were sustained as legally valid and proportionate.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2025 09:00:56 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93524</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>