The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the attachment of multiple properties linked to an NDPS convict, rejecting the spouse’s claims of legitimate acquisition. The ruling emphasized that unverified cash gifts and loans, and mere ITR filings, are insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 68J of the NDPS Act.
The Tribunal found the ED’s delayed prosecution complaint timely in view of the pandemic-related exclusion of limitation. It confirmed the attachment of Karti Chidambaram’s Jor Bagh property and bank accounts, rejecting claims of lapse under Section 8(3)(a).
The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the attachment of 511 properties valued at Rs.96.05 crore, ruling they were proceeds from illegal granite mining. The judgment reaffirmed that money-laundering is a continuing offense, validating the attachment even for assets acquired before the PMLA came into force.
Finding procedural lapses in document disclosure, the Tribunal invalidated the ED’s order retaining ₹5.75 lakh seized from Gurudev Jewellers. It reaffirmed that all relied-upon documents must be provided to affected parties to ensure fair adjudication.
The Tribunal confirmed that a benami transaction occurred when ₹43.5 lakh of unaccounted cash was routed through a third-party firm as an accommodation entry. However, due to inconsistent evidence regarding the link between this benami cash and the attached property, the case was remanded for a new adjudication.
Rejecting claims of legitimate book payments, the Tribunal found that amounts received from Future Maker Life Care were linked to money laundering. It upheld the ED’s attachment orders against Mind is King and its partners.
Appellate Tribunal confirmed that money is a liquid form of asset under FEMA Section 3(d), rejecting the exporter’s argument to the contrary in a fraudulent export scheme. The Tribunal confirmed the contravention but reduced the cumulative penalty from Rs.12 lakh to Rs.6 lakh.
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Union of India’s appeal seeking enhancement of the ₹1 crore penalty imposed on two individuals for FEMA violations related to an overseas property purchase. The Tribunal affirmed the Special Director’s decision, holding that the levied penalty was reasonable considering the facts, including the payment of a loan by the father despite the property being in the son’s name.
The Appellate Tribunal held that an attempted foreign exchange transaction is not a contravention under FEMA Section 3(d), as the Act requires an actual financial transaction. The Tribunal dismissed the Enforcement Directorate’s plea for confiscation of ₹89.70 lakh and ordered the refund of the balance after adjusting the penalties.
Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (Appellate Tribunal Under Safema At New Delhi) Loan or Land Grab?- Benami Land Purchase through Driver – Tribunal Calls Gurushree Minerals’ Deal a Benami Ruse- Tribunal Confirms Attachment of 30.6 Hectares of Tribal Land Bought by Company The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, New Delhi, vide Final Order dt. 14.10.2025 in […]
