BMA s.55

BMA s.55 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section BMA s.55, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Union of India v Gautam Khaitan Supreme CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  The department says the Black Money Act applies to my foreign account from July 2015. Is that retrospective?
  No. Notifying 1 July 2015 as the commencement date of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act 2015 did not make the Act retrospective. The date was advanced only so the one-time compliance window in s.59 could operate, and tax under s.3 is still charged only from assessment year 2016-17 onwards.
• H.J. Siwani v Income Tax Department High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  The sanction for my prosecution covers a Black Money Act offence too. Can I get the whole complaint quashed for want of a valid s.55 sanction?
  Not on these facts. The Karnataka High Court held the s.55 point academic because the trial court, while taking cognizance of the Income-tax Act offences, did not take cognizance of the offence under s.50 of the Black Money Act at all. Whether the sanction that was granted is in accordance with law is for the Special Court to decide at trial, not for a petition under s.482 CrPC.

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.