<?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 (3) TMI 660 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787905</link>
    <description>Investment in Bharathi Cements and the later share-sale proceeds were held not to be proceeds of crime because the transaction was treated as a genuine commercial outgo and no material showed tainted funds or criminal involvement of the foreign purchaser. Mining-linked profits from the Kadapa limestone activity were treated as proceeds of crime at the provisional stage on the basis of a coordinated and collusive arrangement, but the quantified amount was reduced after accepting revised computation and excluding the share-sale component. The Tribunal found sufficient reason to believe for provisional attachment under the PMLA where direct proceeds were stated to be intermingled and untraceable. It also held that no express power existed to direct substitution of attached property, though an agreed substitution was not precluded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Mar 2026 08:36:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=890535" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 660 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787905</link>
      <description>Investment in Bharathi Cements and the later share-sale proceeds were held not to be proceeds of crime because the transaction was treated as a genuine commercial outgo and no material showed tainted funds or criminal involvement of the foreign purchaser. Mining-linked profits from the Kadapa limestone activity were treated as proceeds of crime at the provisional stage on the basis of a coordinated and collusive arrangement, but the quantified amount was reduced after accepting revised computation and excluding the share-sale component. The Tribunal found sufficient reason to believe for provisional attachment under the PMLA where direct proceeds were stated to be intermingled and untraceable. It also held that no express power existed to direct substitution of attached property, though an agreed substitution was not precluded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787905</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>