<?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>2025 (2) TMI 1778 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468140</link>
    <description>Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, attachment can be sustained even where the person is not named in the CBI charge-sheet or prosecution complaint, because the decisive factor is involvement with proceeds of crime. The Directorate&#039;s valuation of the immovable property was upheld on the basis of the appellant&#039;s section 50 statement and documentary indications of cash payment, rather than the sale deed alone. The limitation objection under section 8(3)(a) failed on the filing chronology. Provisional attachment was also held valid despite the property&#039;s prior seizure by the CBI, and the recorded reasons in the attachment order were treated as sufficient. The confirmation of attachment was sustained and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 22:39:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=897262" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 1778 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468140</link>
      <description>Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, attachment can be sustained even where the person is not named in the CBI charge-sheet or prosecution complaint, because the decisive factor is involvement with proceeds of crime. The Directorate&#039;s valuation of the immovable property was upheld on the basis of the appellant&#039;s section 50 statement and documentary indications of cash payment, rather than the sale deed alone. The limitation objection under section 8(3)(a) failed on the filing chronology. Provisional attachment was also held valid despite the property&#039;s prior seizure by the CBI, and the recorded reasons in the attachment order were treated as sufficient. The confirmation of attachment was sustained and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468140</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>