The Appellate Tribunal addressed two key issues: 1) The duration ...

Tribunal Upholds 180-Day Extension for Seized Property Due to COVID-19; Validates Single-Member Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA Section 20(3.

July 3, 2024

Case Laws Money Laundering AT

The Appellate Tribunal addressed two key issues: 1) The duration for which property can be retained u/s 20(3) of PMLA, 2002, and 2) The constitution of the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority exceeded the 180-day limit for retaining seized property due to Covid-19 related extensions. Citing precedents, the Tribunal ruled that the excluded period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 should not count towards the 180-day limit. Additionally, it upheld the competence of a single-member bench as the Adjudicating Authority based on judgments from Calcutta High Court and Telangana High Court. The appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The Appellate Tribunal addressed two key issues: 1) The duration ...

Tribunal Upholds 180-Day Extension for Seized Property Due to COVID-19; Validates Single-Member Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA Section 20(3.

July 3, 2024

Case Laws Money Laundering AT

You may also like:

The AT upheld the provisional attachment order over the proceeds of crime. Despite the lapse of 180 days u/s 5(3) of PMLA, the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was...

The AT dismissed the appeal challenging the provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It held that the confirmation of the order...

The provisional attachment order treating the appellant's land property as 'proceeds of crime' was challenged on the ground of time limitation of 180 days. It was held...

Relaxation in adherence to prescribed timelines issued by SEBI due to Covid 19 - Circular

The High Court held that the delay of 80 days in filing the Return of Income should be condoned as the petitioner faced genuine hardship due to valid reasons arising...

AT affirmed the provisional attachment order in a money laundering case involving alleged bank fraud. The tribunal held that: (1) a predicate offense existed at the time...

The appellant sought lapse of the attachment order u/s 5(1) and (3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, questioning the legality of the order issued in...

Provisional attachment order under Money Laundering Act challenged for being beyond 180 days. Court held that period from 15th March 2020 till 28th February 2022 must be...

NCLAT determined that the moratorium period of 180 days u/s 101(1) of IBC is mandatory, not directory, and cannot be extended by either the Adjudicating Authority or the...

Penalty levied u/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with documentary evidence requirements was challenged by the assessee, citing COVID-19 restrictions as a reasonable...

SVLDRS - The court acknowledged that the petitioner failed to make the balance payment within the extended period due to financial constraints post-COVID-19. However, it...

The assessee, a company engaged in development/construction and sale of flats and plots, had classified its properties into four categories: flats open for sale, let-out...

CBDT revising return forms to enable taxpayers avail benefits of timeline extension due to Covid-19 - News

Extension of deadline for implementation of the circular on Stewardship Code for all Mutual Funds and all categories of AIFs due to the CoVID– 19 pandemic - Circular

Re-export of even after the expiry of the warehousing period - Due to COVID-19 pandemic, the appellants were unable to proceed with their construction project and clear...

Quick Updates: