Both seem correct, yes.
1. Pater ei non pecuniam dedit. (His father didn't give him money. [denying, neutrally and dispassionately, the truth of the opposite: His father gave him money. So, strictly, this leaves open the possibility that "father", for instance, paid him money, or that "father" gave him something else, or that "mother" gave money, etc])
2. Pater ei nullam (= non ullam) pecuniam dedit. (His father didn't give him any money. [in this case, there is not, in the first place, a denial (although "non" is, as said, implicated in "nullam"), but a statement, a positive assertion. So, in the case of 1., it is said: "it is not true, that father gave him money", whereas in 2. it is said: "it is true, that father gave him no money". Indeed a nuance, for in 1. the process of giving something is, as such, denied, while in 2. it is asserted, although the object of giving is nothing ])
3. Pater ei nihil pecuniae dedit. (His father gave him nothing in the way of money. [what was stated under 2. is m. m. applicable here as well]).