<?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>2024 (12) TMI 1717 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467372</link>
    <description>Confirmed attachment remained sustainable where the investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, supported by Section 50 statements and a bank trail, linked the funds used for acquisition and instalment payments to proceeds of crime. The Tribunal found that advance payments had been made before completion of the tender process, that the differential receipts were not satisfactorily explained as ordinary business profit, and that the flat and vehicles were traceable to tainted money. It also rejected the objection based on Section 164 CrPC statements because those statements were not the evidentiary basis of the attachment. The earlier connected order concerning a different property did not affect these appeals, and the attachment of the remaining four properties was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2026 19:04:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=890878" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 1717 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467372</link>
      <description>Confirmed attachment remained sustainable where the investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, supported by Section 50 statements and a bank trail, linked the funds used for acquisition and instalment payments to proceeds of crime. The Tribunal found that advance payments had been made before completion of the tender process, that the differential receipts were not satisfactorily explained as ordinary business profit, and that the flat and vehicles were traceable to tainted money. It also rejected the objection based on Section 164 CrPC statements because those statements were not the evidentiary basis of the attachment. The earlier connected order concerning a different property did not affect these appeals, and the attachment of the remaining four properties was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467372</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>