Topic

Black Money Act

3 articlesLatest August 2026
Undisclosed foreign nominee shares not taxable in assessee’s hands - Section 10(1) notice must specify FY | Beneficial ownership of foreign shares : ITAT Delhi
Case Law Analysis
|Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Undisclosed foreign nominee shares not taxable in assessee’s hands - Section 10(1) notice must specify FY | Beneficial ownership of foreign shares : ITAT Delhi

The ITAT Delhi ruled that foreign shares held as a nominee are not taxable in the assessee’s hands, and any Section 10(1) notice must expressly state the relevant financial year. This clarifies that undisclosed foreign nominee assets escape tax liability unless properly disclosed, guiding tax practitioners and assessees with such holdings.

Section 43 BMA | No Penalty for Foreign Assets Disclosed in Section 153A Return Even If Omitted in Original Return : ITAT Ahmedabad
|Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Section 43 BMA | No Penalty for Foreign Assets Disclosed in Section 153A Return Even If Omitted in Original Return : ITAT Ahmedabad

ITAT Ahmedabad rules that penalty under Section 43 of the Black Money Act cannot be imposed if foreign assets are disclosed in a return filed under Section 153A, even if omitted in the original return. The decision shields taxpayers from penalties for voluntary disclosures made post-search, reinforcing procedural fairness in foreign asset reporting.

Black Money Act Section 43 | Inadvertent Foreign Account Number Error in Schedule FA Exempts Penalty if Full Transaction Disclosure Made : ITAT Mumbai
Case Law Analysis
|Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Black Money Act Section 43 | Inadvertent Foreign Account Number Error in Schedule FA Exempts Penalty if Full Transaction Disclosure Made : ITAT Mumbai

ITAT Mumbai has ruled that a genuine, inadvertent misstatement of a foreign bank account number in Schedule FA does not attract penalty under Section 43 of the Black Money Act, provided all transaction details are fully disclosed and the account is otherwise reported. This sets a critical precedent for taxpayers who make clerical errors while acting in good faith, reinforcing that intent and completeness of disclosure outweigh technical inaccuracies.

Continue exploring