The FAST-DS eligibility cliffs: Rs 5 crore, and the Rs 1 crore ceiling

Short answer: above ₹5 crore of asset value the scheme is not available at all. There is no higher charge above the line and no option to declare part of it. The ₹1 crore ceiling on entry 1 of the Table works the same way — as a cliff, not a band.

Both are eligibility tests rather than rate bands, and that distinction changes how you approach the numbers.

A cliff, not a band

Most tax thresholds are bands: cross one and a higher rate applies to the excess. These are not.

₹5 crore. Where the value of the assets exceeds it, CBDT's FAQ is explicit that the assessee is not eligible to avail the scheme. Not a higher charge — no scheme.

₹1 crore. The ceiling on entry 1 of the Table in Section 133 caps the aggregate of the undisclosed foreign asset value and the undisclosed foreign income falling within that entry. Same structure.

The consequence is that the computation is not a pricing exercise but a gate. You are either inside or you are not, and there is nothing to optimise across the boundary.

Partial declaration is not a route through it

The instinct on seeing a cliff is to look for a way to sit below it. There is not one here.

The limit is tested on the value of the assets — not on what you elect to put in the form. And selecting a subset in order to fall under the line engages Section 134(3), which invalidates a declaration where any material particular is found to be false at any stage. That phrase has no time limit, so a declaration built that way does not become safe with age.

What actually goes into the base

This is where more cases turn than on the arithmetic, and it works in the taxpayer's favour more often than people expect.

Section 131 defines an undisclosed foreign asset. An asset whose source of investment is explained is not one.

The clearest example: shares received under an employer plan and taxed as a perquisite on vesting. Their source is explained — they were taxed as salary when they vested. They do not enter the base, and they do not count towards the ceiling. Only the unreported income on them does.

So someone holding a large vested equity position, who assumes the whole holding counts, may conclude they are far over the line when the amount actually in the base is a fraction of it. Establishing what is genuinely an undisclosed asset is therefore the first step, not the last.

The two entries cost very different amounts

The difference is not marginal. Which entry the facts fall into is worth establishing carefully rather than assumed from the headline rate.

A completed assessment closes the year

Section 140(b) puts a year outside the scheme entirely where Black Money Act assessment proceedings have been completed for it.

Pending proceedings are a different matter. Section 141 provides that where a declaration is made and proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961 or the Black Money Act are pending on the same income or assets, the Assessing Officer takes the declaration into account in finalising the assessment.

Completed bars. Pending does not. Which of the two applies to a given year is a question of record rather than judgement, and worth checking before anything else.

If you are genuinely over the line

The scheme is closed, but the alternative is not "do nothing". The Black Money Act charges 120% against the scheme's 60%, and unlike the scheme it has no closing date.

What the right course is depends on the facts and on what the department already holds. That is a conversation rather than a decision to take alone.

The full scheme — the four-form sequence, the payment clock and what a declaration forecloses — is in FAST-DS 2026. How a bank account is valued, which frequently decides whether the limits are even in play, is in the foreign bank account valuation.

This is a working reference, not the statute. Eligibility turns on your own figures — confirm them against the Rules before concluding you are inside or outside.