https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781392 The AT dismissed the substitution applications, holding it lacks statutory power under PMLA to permit substitution of attached property. The tribunal found the Delhi HC consensual order and the SC decision factually distinct and not precedential for this matter, and noted the HC's reasoning that substitution may be permitted only in writ jurisdiction where equitable relief is available. Because this AT is a creature of statute without writ jurisdiction, and no specific statutory power to allow substitution exists, the applications were refused. en-us Wed, 12 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Nov 2025 07:56:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781392 The AT dismissed the substitution applications, holding it lacks statutory power under PMLA to permit substitution of attached property. The tribunal found the Delhi HC consensual order and the SC decision factually distinct and not precedential for this matter, and noted the HC's reasoning that substitution may be permitted only in writ jurisdiction where equitable relief is available. Because this AT is a creature of statute without writ jurisdiction, and no specific statutory power to allow substitution exists, the applications were refused. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 12 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781392