Advocates Mahendra Gargieya and Hemang Gargieya have explained the law relating to “full and true disclosure of material facts” in the context of reopening under sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ld. authors have explained the fine distinction between the obligation of the assessee to disclose the “material facts” and the requirement to disclose the “inferences” to be drawn from those facts. They have opined, by relying on judgements of the Apex Court, that while the assessee is required to disclose the former, he is not obliged to disclose the latter

CA Tilak Chandna has analyzed in a meticulous manner the definition of the term “benami transaction” in section 2(9) of the Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act, 1988. He has explained precisely which transactions are, and which are not, covered by the definition of the term. All the important legal precedents on the issue, of the Indian Courts as well as that of the foreign courts, have been referred to

Advocate Sameer Bhatia has dealt with the interplay between sections 2(47) and 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the Registration Act, 1908. He has also dealt with the controversial question whether a “transfer” is complete on the date of the agreement to sell or on the date of physical possession/registration of documents. All the relevant judgements as well as Circulars of the CBDT have been referred to by the Ld. Author

Advocate Divesh Chawla has conducted a comprehensive analysis of the Benami Law. He has explained the impact of the statutory provisions, the process involved, and the consequences in civil and criminal law. He has also explained the conflict between the Benami Law, the Income-tax Act and the Money Laundering Act. He has also provided valuable advice on the precautions to be taken by the concerned persons and third parties to avoid falling foul of the law

CA Shivangi Samdhani has argued that the extension of the due date of the Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, brought by the Finance Minister through Press Conference held on 13th May 2020, does not serve the purpose in true spirit and is also unfair to those who have already filed the declaration forms. She has suggested that, in order to make parity, assessees should be allowed to pay tax arrears till December, 2020 irrespective of the date of filing of Declaration. This, she says, will result in a win-win situation for all

CA Khushboo Arora has methodically analyzed all the provisions in the Income-tax Act, 1961 applicable to cash transactions such as Sections 269SS, 269T, 269ST, 271D, 271E, 271DA, 44AD, 44AB, 269SU, 194N, etc. She has explained the ambit of these provisions with the aid of practical examples. She has also drawn attention to all the important judgements and CBDT Circulars on the point. A pdf copy of the article is available for download

CA Nidhi Surana has explained the subtle differences between an assessment made under section 153C of the Act and that made under section 147/148 of the Act. She has pointed out that the different jurisdictional conditions that have to be satisfied before the AO invokes either of the two provisions. She has also highlighted the different consequences that befall the assessee under the two assessments. All the relevant judgements and Circulars of the CBDT have been referred to

Advocate Sarthak P. Shetty has argued that section 278E of the Income-tax Act, which shifts the burden of proof upon the assessee and provides that an accused is presumed to have a culpabe mental state, is contrary to the basic principles of criminal law and makes serious inroads on the fundamental rights of citizens. He has pointed out that even in the other statutes such as The Prevention of Corruption Act and the NDPS Act, where the burden is shifted to the accused, the accused has to satisfy the Court only on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not “beyond reasonable doubt”. He has also referred to all the leading cases on the subject to support his argument

Advocate Anuj Kisnadwala has raised the interesting and relevant question as to whether, if the landlord gives the tenant a concession in the rent owing to the Covid-19 hardship, he is entitled to claim that he should be taxed only the rent actually received and not on the contracted rent. He has referred to the relevant judgements and also offered valuable guidance on the documentation that the landlord should maintain to be able to argue his case successfully before the authorities

CA. Dushyant Maharishi has pointed out that Globalization has provided multinational corporations with opportunities to minimize their tax burden through ‘Electronic Commerce’. This has led to Countries like India seeking to tax such transactions through the concept of “Virtual Permanent Establishment” and “Equalisation Levy“. He has explained these concepts with reference to the statutory provisions and also the several judgements on the point