<?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 1212 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787064</link>
    <description>In proceedings concerning confirmation of provisional attachment under PMLA, the Tribunal held that the appellants bore the burden under Section 24 to disprove the findings supporting attachment. Their reliance on alternative income figures, rental income, agricultural income, loan receipts, insurance proceeds, and salary data failed because they did not produce satisfactory documentary proof for the relevant years and transactions. The Tribunal found no supporting rent deeds, complete bank records, proof of agricultural receipts, or credible evidence of the alleged cash sources and family contributions. Alleged valuation inconsistencies between the FIR and the attachment order were not shown to affect the attachment, and unexplained cash deposits and acquisitions remained disproportionate to known lawful income. The challenge to the confirmed provisional attachment failed and the attachment was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2026 07:35:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=888066" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 1212 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787064</link>
      <description>In proceedings concerning confirmation of provisional attachment under PMLA, the Tribunal held that the appellants bore the burden under Section 24 to disprove the findings supporting attachment. Their reliance on alternative income figures, rental income, agricultural income, loan receipts, insurance proceeds, and salary data failed because they did not produce satisfactory documentary proof for the relevant years and transactions. The Tribunal found no supporting rent deeds, complete bank records, proof of agricultural receipts, or credible evidence of the alleged cash sources and family contributions. Alleged valuation inconsistencies between the FIR and the attachment order were not shown to affect the attachment, and unexplained cash deposits and acquisitions remained disproportionate to known lawful income. The challenge to the confirmed provisional attachment failed and the attachment was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787064</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>