<?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 (6) TMI 117 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792736</link>
    <description>Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act was sustained where investigation materials showed a traceable link between the properties and proceeds of crime. Statements recorded during investigation, the history of land transfers from company assets, and the absence of credible bank records, loan documents, or other proof of valid consideration supported the finding that the assets had been diverted or shielded through namesake transfers or without consideration. The appellants failed to prove a lawful, independent source of acquisition, so the challenge to attachment failed and the confirmation of provisional attachment was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 08:50:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=905190" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 117 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792736</link>
      <description>Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act was sustained where investigation materials showed a traceable link between the properties and proceeds of crime. Statements recorded during investigation, the history of land transfers from company assets, and the absence of credible bank records, loan documents, or other proof of valid consideration supported the finding that the assets had been diverted or shielded through namesake transfers or without consideration. The appellants failed to prove a lawful, independent source of acquisition, so the challenge to attachment failed and the confirmation of provisional attachment was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792736</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>