BMA s.2(9) — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section BMA s.2(9), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
JCIT v Vikash Marda
ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
They have issued notices under the Black Money Act for 2014-15 and 2015-16. Can the Act reach those years at all?
No. The Kolkata Bench held that the first previous year under the Act is financial year 2015-16, so the first assessment year it can reach is 2016-17, and assessments framed for 2014-15 and 2015-16 were without jurisdiction. The batch is nine Revenue appeals covering both the assessments made under s.10(3) and the deletion of penalties levied under ss.41 and 43, and all nine were dismissed. On the asset, a fund in the United States built out of salary earned there while the assessee was a tax resident of the United States, and taxed there, was held not to fall within the definition of undisclosed asset under the Act.
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.
