https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782239 The AT upheld the impugned order confirming provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. It rejected the challenge based on expiry of 180 days from the provisional attachment, holding that the limitation period stood validly extended by exclusion of the Covid-19 period in terms of the SC's suo motu order. Referring to its earlier decision in a similar matter, the AT found no ground to interfere, particularly as the appellant had been charge-sheeted and not discharged. The AT held that the appellant's Section 50(2) statement was admissible, and she failed to satisfactorily explain the investments, so the attached amount would remain subject to the final outcome of the trial. en-us Mon, 10 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Nov 2025 08:36:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782239 The AT upheld the impugned order confirming provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. It rejected the challenge based on expiry of 180 days from the provisional attachment, holding that the limitation period stood validly extended by exclusion of the Covid-19 period in terms of the SC's suo motu order. Referring to its earlier decision in a similar matter, the AT found no ground to interfere, particularly as the appellant had been charge-sheeted and not discharged. The AT held that the appellant's Section 50(2) statement was admissible, and she failed to satisfactorily explain the investments, so the attached amount would remain subject to the final outcome of the trial. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 10 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782239