https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99892 The Tribunal held that retention and continued freezing of immovable and movable properties could not rest on a non-speaking order that merely reproduced pleadings and recorded only prima facie observations. After considering the reply, hearing the parties and the material on record, the Adjudicating Authority had to independently determine whether any property was involved in money-laundering under section 8. Mere pendency of investigation was insufficient. The Tribunal also noted that the presumption under section 24(a) applies only after foundational facts are established and must remain rebuttable. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh de novo adjudication, with status quo to continue. en-us Tue, 19 May 2026 08:18:20 +0530 Tue, 19 May 2026 08:18:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99892 The Tribunal held that retention and continued freezing of immovable and movable properties could not rest on a non-speaking order that merely reproduced pleadings and recorded only prima facie observations. After considering the reply, hearing the parties and the material on record, the Adjudicating Authority had to independently determine whether any property was involved in money-laundering under section 8. Mere pendency of investigation was insufficient. The Tribunal also noted that the presumption under section 24(a) applies only after foundational facts are established and must remain rebuttable. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh de novo adjudication, with status quo to continue. Highlights Money Laundering Tue, 19 May 2026 08:18:20 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99892