<?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>2026 (2) TMI 533 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786385</link>
    <description>Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, provisional attachment of an undivided 50% share in residential property was sustained because the record showed a prima facie nexus between the asset and proceeds of crime arising from the scheduled offence. The tribunal held that, at the attachment stage, the inquiry is limited to prima facie linkage, and attachment of an undivided share in immovable property is permissible. Claims based on financial contributions, residence, household expenses, alleged lack of enquiry, and the argument that the matter fell only within income-tax law did not displace the statutory nexus, and the appellants failed to show that the attached interest was untainted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2026 09:03:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=885951" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 533 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786385</link>
      <description>Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, provisional attachment of an undivided 50% share in residential property was sustained because the record showed a prima facie nexus between the asset and proceeds of crime arising from the scheduled offence. The tribunal held that, at the attachment stage, the inquiry is limited to prima facie linkage, and attachment of an undivided share in immovable property is permissible. Claims based on financial contributions, residence, household expenses, alleged lack of enquiry, and the argument that the matter fell only within income-tax law did not displace the statutory nexus, and the appellants failed to show that the attached interest was untainted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786385</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>