The Tribunal set aside the earlier order because it had relied on the now-recalled Ganpati Dealcom judgment while excluding pre-2016 funding from scrutiny. The matter has been sent back for fresh adjudication, ensuring the Benami allegations are reconsidered on merits.
Tribunal reduces FEMA penalty from ₹30 lakh to ₹10 lakh, confirming that unauthorised netting-off of ₹1.72 crore foreign commission violated statutory repatriation rules.
The Tribunal ruled that even without direct fund transfer, deep financial and management integration justified tagging the deposits as value of proceeds of crime. The attachment was sustained as the company formed part of the same economic group.
The Court upheld provisional attachment of Rs. 1.35 crore, finding the Appellant supplied cheaper PDW while claiming reimbursement at Rail Neer rates. The loss to the government and breach of mandatory supply obligations justified the action.
The tribunal confirmed penalties against a company and responsible directors for not realizing export proceeds of Rs.36 crores, emphasizing that commercial disputes cannot override FEMA obligations.
Tribunal upheld hawala and import undervaluation violations but significantly cut penalties for Dr. Manoharan and NTPL, fully exonerating two female directors. Key takeaway: Liability depends on active involvement, not mere association.
Gujarat High Court granted anticipatory bail to a Chartered Accountant accused of alleged GST evasion, holding that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and liberty must be protected.
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals, confirming the attachment of ₹5.5 crore in assets belonging to an IAS officer’s family, ruling that the properties were acquired using laundered bribe money from the coal levy scam. Citing the Supreme Court’s precedent, the Tribunal held that even pre-offence assets can be attached as value-equivalent proceeds of crime under PMLA.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the ED’s attachment of a resort property, ruling it a benami transaction designed to circumvent the law, especially after media scrutiny over CRZ violations. The court found that the beneficial owner’s act of guaranteeing the benamidar’s loan used for the property purchase confirmed the beneficial control.
The SAFEMA Tribunal upheld the attachment of land registered in a tribal’s name, finding it a benami transaction under the amended Act. The ruling confirmed that purchasing restricted tribal land using funds provided by a non-tribal beneficial owner for future commercial resort development is illegal circumvention.
