<?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>Proof of independent funds for property acquisition requires reliable evidence when cash transactions support provisional attachment as criminal proceeds.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=105728</link>
    <description>Provisional attachment of immovable property as proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 involved scrutiny of the claimed independent sources of acquisition funds. Claimed masonry earnings were supported only by a Sarpanch&#039;s certificate that stated no income amount. An agreement to sell ancestral property did not establish receipt of consideration, and no sale deed or documentary proof of instalment payments was produced. Cash deposits remained unexplained, while cash was withdrawn on the date the sale deed for the attached property was executed. The withdrawal was treated, on the facts, as evidence that proceeds of crime funded the acquisition, supporting confirmation of the attachment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2026 09:23:34 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2026 09:23:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=933178" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Proof of independent funds for property acquisition requires reliable evidence when cash transactions support provisional attachment as criminal proceeds.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=105728</link>
      <description>Provisional attachment of immovable property as proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 involved scrutiny of the claimed independent sources of acquisition funds. Claimed masonry earnings were supported only by a Sarpanch&#039;s certificate that stated no income amount. An agreement to sell ancestral property did not establish receipt of consideration, and no sale deed or documentary proof of instalment payments was produced. Cash deposits remained unexplained, while cash was withdrawn on the date the sale deed for the attached property was executed. The withdrawal was treated, on the facts, as evidence that proceeds of crime funded the acquisition, supporting confirmation of the attachment.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2026 09:23:34 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=105728</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>