For many investors, a commercial property deal appears straightforward.
You purchase a unit. The developer promises possession. A lease agreement provides regular rental income. Perhaps there is even a buy-back arrangement if you eventually want to exit.
The numbers look attractive. The paperwork looks formal. And when the first rental payments arrive, the investment appears to be working exactly as promised.
But what happens when the promised rent stops, possession never arrives, or the same property appears to have been sold or leased to more than one person?
That is the picture emerging from the latest Enforcement Directorate action in the 32nd Avenue Group case, where properties and assets worth ₹71.60 crore have been provisionally attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The case is a reminder that investors need to look beyond projected returns and examine the underlying transaction, documentation, ownership and fund trail before committing substantial capital.
The Investment Promise Looked Attractive
According to the ED's press release, the investigation arose from multiple FIRs registered by the Delhi Police and Gurugram Police against the group, its promoter-directors Anubhav Sharma, Dhruv Sharma and others.
The FIRs relate to allegations including cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery and conspiracy.
The investigation has allegedly uncovered a systematic method of attracting investors into commercial properties.
Investors were induced to purchase commercial units on the basis of promises involving:
- Assured long-term leases
- Fixed rental income
- Buy-back arrangements
- Periodic increases in returns
For an investor looking for passive income, such a structure can sound extremely appealing.
Buy a commercial unit, receive rent and eventually have an exit through the promised buy-back.
But according to the investigation, the reality in several cases was very different.
When the Property Itself Became the Problem
The ED investigation reportedly found instances where possession of commercial units was either never handed over or was subsequently taken back.
More seriously, the same commercial spaces were allegedly sold or leased to multiple persons.
The investigation also found alleged alterations to unit numbers, areas and layouts. Original units were reportedly subdivided into smaller units, followed by the use of allegedly forged or fabricated sale and conveyance documents to transfer those units to third parties.
This is where a commercial property investment can become much more complicated than a normal rental-income calculation.
An investor may have a sale agreement.
Another party may have another document.
The physical property may exist, but the question becomes:
Who actually owns the specific unit, what exactly was sold, and does the documentation match the physical property and legal title?
For investors, these are not questions that should be answered after the money has already been transferred.
The First Few Rental Payments Can Create False Confidence
One particularly important detail in the ED's findings concerns rental payments.
According to the investigation, rental payments were initially made for a limited period and were subsequently stopped, while control over the properties was retained.
This matters because early payments can create a powerful sense of security.
An investor receives rent for several months and assumes the underlying business model is genuine and sustainable.
But regular payments in the beginning do not, by themselves, establish that the underlying property structure is sound.
For anyone considering a commercial real estate investment, the real questions should include:
Is the property actually generating independent rental income?
Who is the tenant?
Is the lease genuine and enforceable?
Who owns the property?
Is the promised buy-back backed by a legally enforceable arrangement?
And most importantly, where is the investor's money ultimately going?
The TDS Issue Adds Another Layer
The case also highlights an issue that many investors may overlook: Tax Deducted at Source (TDS).
The ED investigation reportedly identified instances where TDS was deducted from rental payments but was allegedly not deposited with the Income Tax Department.
For an investor, this demonstrates why Tax compliance cannot be separated from the underlying investment structure.
A rental payment is not simply a credit in a bank account.
There may be TDS obligations, tax reporting requirements, documentation and reconciliation involved.
When deducted tax is not properly deposited or reported, the investor may potentially face additional questions regarding the transaction and the tax trail.
This is why real estate tax compliance and investment due diligence should be considered together rather than separately.
Following the Money Became Central to the Investigation
The investigation did not stop with the properties.
According to the ED, funds collected from investors were routed and layered through a network of more than 50 companies and LLPs.
Many of these entities were reportedly operating from common or non-functional addresses and were allegedly used for routing and layering funds.
This is an important lesson for investors and businesses alike.
The name appearing on a property document or investment agreement may not tell the entire story.
A proper financial due diligence process should examine:
- Who receives the investment money?
- Which legal entity owns the property?
- Are related companies involved?
- Are funds being transferred between group entities?
- Does the business have genuine operations?
- Are the stated assets and liabilities independently verifiable?
When multiple entities are involved, understanding the fund flow can be just as important as understanding the property itself.
From Gurugram to Goa and Maharashtra
The investigation also reportedly traced the utilisation of funds received from the sale of properties at 32nd Avenue and related projects towards the acquisition of properties in Goa and Maharashtra.
As part of the action, the ED provisionally attached 76 immovable properties, including commercial units in Gurugram and land/property in Goa and Maharashtra. It also attached 38 movable properties, including balances in multiple bank accounts and an inland vessel.
This demonstrates another important aspect of financial investigations.
The asset trail does not necessarily remain within the original project.
Once funds move through multiple entities and jurisdictions, investigators may follow the money to assets purchased elsewhere.
For investors, this reinforces the importance of maintaining a complete investment documentation and payment trail from the beginning.
Enforcement Action Did Not Begin With the Attachment
The latest attachment is part of an ongoing investigation.
The ED had earlier conducted search operations on 13 and 14 April 2026 at seven premises across Delhi-NCR, Goa, Jaipur and Mumbai.
The press release also states that key accused Anubhav Sharma, Dhruv Sharma, Mamta Sharma and Shirin Sharma are presently in judicial custody in the predicate case. The investigation remains ongoing.
It is important to remember that the ED action and allegations described in the press release form part of an ongoing legal process. The investigation is not the same thing as a final judicial determination of guilt.
What Investors Can Learn From the 32nd Avenue Case
The biggest lesson is not simply "be careful with real estate."
It is more specific:
Do not evaluate an investment only on the basis of the return being promised. Evaluate the structure that is supposed to generate that return.
Before investing in commercial property or an assured-rental scheme, investors should consider conducting:
1. Title and ownership verification
Confirm who legally owns the property and whether the exact unit being offered exists as represented.
2. Agreement review
Examine sale agreements, lease arrangements, buy-back clauses and exit conditions carefully.
3. Corporate due diligence
Understand the legal entities involved, their directors, ownership structure and relationship with the project.
4. Fund-flow analysis
Determine where the investment money goes and whether payments are being routed through multiple related entities.
5. Tax compliance review
Verify TDS treatment, rental income reporting and other applicable tax obligations.
6. Independent valuation
Do not rely exclusively on the developer's valuation or projected rental return.
7. Physical verification
The property on paper should correspond to the property on the ground — including unit number, area, layout and possession status.
Shunyatax's View:
High Returns Need Stronger Due Diligence
At Shunyatax, we believe the more attractive an investment structure appears, the more carefully its underlying financial and legal structure should be examined.
Assured rental income, buy-back commitments and fixed returns may look comfortable on paper. But investors need to understand how those returns are actually being generated and whether the structure supporting them is sustainable and properly documented.
If you are evaluating a commercial real estate investment, dealing with complex investment structures, reviewing suspicious fund flows, or facing a tax, financial compliance or regulatory concern, Shunyatax Global can help you examine the financial and compliance aspects before the problem becomes larger.
If your investment involves multiple entities, large fund transfers, rental income, TDS or complex property structures, professional due diligence can help identify potential red flags early.
📞 +91 9461514198
Talk to Shunyatax for Financial, Tax & Compliance Advisory.