BMA s.40(1) — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section BMA s.40(1), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
Pascal Postel v DDIT (Inv.)
ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
The officer has charged interest under s.40 of the Black Money Act on top of the tax. Is there any machinery for it, and can I still fight the quantum in the appeal against the rectification order?
Interest under s.40(2) was held unworkable, because the advance-tax machinery on which ss.234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act operate is absent from the Black Money Act, so there is no statutory liability to pay advance tax on which the interest can bite. Interest under s.40(1) was held not to arise where the foreign source itself was disclosed, the expression 'not disclosed' meaning complete suppression of the source and not a difference in the quantum assessed. On the procedural point, where an assessment order under s.10 is altered by a rectification order under s.12, the two are read together as one composite order, so the appeal against the rectified order carries the underlying quantum with it.
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.
