BMA s.2(2)

BMA s.2(2) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section BMA s.2(2), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Atanu Banerjee v DDIT (Investigation) ITATCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  I bought a house abroad years ago while I was a non-resident. Now that I have been resident in India, can it be taxed under the Black Money Act?
  The argument that acquisition while non-resident puts the asset outside the Act did not succeed before the Delhi Bench. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the assessee, being resident in India from assessment year 2016-17, was required to declare the foreign asset and explain its source, and that s.72(c) deems a pre-commencement asset in respect of which no declaration was made under Chapter VI to have been acquired in the year the s.10 notice was issued. It did not decide the appeal: it restored the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication so that the assessee could produce evidence of the source of the investment and of his residential status.
• Vijendra Kedia v DDIT (Inv) ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The officer valued my foreign shareholding under the rule meant for bank accounts. Does that stand, and was I even an 'assessee' under the Act as a not ordinarily resident?
  Neither stands. Rule 3(1)(e) of the Black Money Rules determines the value of a bank account and cannot be applied to shares, which fall under Rule 3(1)(c). Separately, the definition of 'assessee' in s.2(2) as it stood when the s.10(1) notice was issued in February 2018 covered only a resident, and the assessee being not ordinarily resident in the relevant financial year, the notice and the assessment were held to be without jurisdiction and were quashed.
• Timothy John Brinkman v DDIT (Inv.) ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I am a foreign national who became resident in India and missed Schedule FA in my first return, but I put it right in a revised return. Is the Rs 10 lakh penalty still due?
  Not on these facts. The Mumbai Bench deleted a penalty under s.43 where a British citizen, resident in India for a fixed five-year assignment, omitted his United Kingdom assets from Schedule FA in the original return and disclosed them in a revised return filed within the time allowed by s.139(5). The Tribunal held that the Revenue had not established that he had ever been an Indian citizen or that the foreign investments came out of undisclosed Indian income, and that the Act is aimed at undisclosed foreign income and assets, not at a bona fide omission.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.