<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Penalty jurisdiction under the Black Money Act fails where the approving authority imposes it or the assessment year is wrong.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102029</link>
    <description>Under the Black Money Act, the note addresses whether an Additional Commissioner who acts as the statutory approving authority may also impose a penalty for undisclosed foreign assets. It states that where approval by the Joint Commissioner or Joint Director is required for penalties above the prescribed threshold, the approving authority cannot exercise the separate power to impose the penalty. It also explains that a penalty cannot survive where the underlying assessment concerns the wrong assessment year: foreign-investment information, statement and tax payment relating to one year cannot support assessment and penalty for another year. The note further recognises that jurisdictional defects in the primary assessment may be challenged in consequential penalty proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 08:36:14 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 08:36:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=913281" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Penalty jurisdiction under the Black Money Act fails where the approving authority imposes it or the assessment year is wrong.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102029</link>
      <description>Under the Black Money Act, the note addresses whether an Additional Commissioner who acts as the statutory approving authority may also impose a penalty for undisclosed foreign assets. It states that where approval by the Joint Commissioner or Joint Director is required for penalties above the prescribed threshold, the approving authority cannot exercise the separate power to impose the penalty. It also explains that a penalty cannot survive where the underlying assessment concerns the wrong assessment year: foreign-investment information, statement and tax payment relating to one year cannot support assessment and penalty for another year. The note further recognises that jurisdictional defects in the primary assessment may be challenged in consequential penalty proceedings.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 08:36:14 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102029</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>