CA Dev Kumar Kothari has alleged that the Department is behaving in a high-handed manner by issuing statutory notices at a late stage and threatening taxpayers with penalty for non-compliance. He argues that this is not only creating harassment for the taxpayers and professionals but also reflects inefficiencies in the working of the department. He has offered suggestions on how the department can streamline its affairs and achieve its objectives in an efficient manner

In Maxopp Investment Ltd v/s CIT 402 ITR 640 (SC), the Supreme Court has laid down important law on the interpretation of section 14A and Rule 8D. Advocate Vipul Joshi has conducted a detailed study of the judgement in juxtaposition with the earlier judgements of the apex court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd v/s DCIT 394 ITR 449 (SC)] and CIT v/s. Essar Teleholdings Ltd 401 ITR 445 (SC) and explained its precise implications

Advocate Narayan Jain has explained the entire law and procedure relating to admissions and retractions in income-tax proceedings. He has explained the extent to which the admissions are binding on the taxpayers. He has also explained the procedure by which taxpayers can retract from their admissions. All the important case laws on the subject have been referred to with a succinct commentary on their applicability