The Tribunal examined whether failure to separately communicate reasons under Section 24(1) invalidates benami proceedings. It ruled that reasons embedded in the show cause notice itself are sufficient, affirming that procedural compliance was met and attachment was valid.
The tribunal ruled that buying property through a court-supervised auction does not shield a transaction from benami law. Where the lender’s creditworthiness and real source of funds are unproven, provisional attachment is valid.
The SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal held that property attachment under PMLA requires prima facie proof of a money trail. Mere suspicion or association with accused persons is insufficient to sustain attachment.
The Tribunal held that holding and operating a foreign bank account without RBI approval is a continuing contravention under FEMA. Subsequent repatriation or tax disclosure does not wipe out liability, and penalties were upheld.
The Tribunal ruled that a car financed partly through unexplained cash could be attached under PMLA, even though a bank held a secured interest, reinforcing that tainted funds justify attachment.
Tribunal affirms major penalties for widespread delays and non-reporting of NTRs, STRs, and CBWTRs. Held that systemic AML lapses cannot be excused by technical issues; strict compliance is mandatory.
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.
