Month: April 2020

CA Sanjay Mody has pointed out that the result of the amendment made by the Finance Act 2020 to section 17(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act is that the contributions made by the employer in NPS account of the employee, after being included as ‘Salary’ in the hands of the employee, may also be included as ‘Perquisite’ in computing his or her taxable salary income, resulting in double taxation. He has urged the Government to rectify the ambiguity as it will otherwise lead to litigation and also frustrate the social objective of the NPS

Advocate Neelam Jadav has collated all the important judgements of the Bombay High Court delivered in the period from January 2019 to February 2020. She has arranged all the judgements section-wise to aid reference. Several of the judgements are not yet reported in the Journals. She has also highlighted the cases where the Supreme Court has granted or rejected Special Leave Petitions

Advocate Dharan Gandhi has traced the legislative history relating to ‘Tax Collection At Source’ (TCS). He has argued that while the purpose of the legislation is laudable, the means to achieve such purpose are not correct or apt. He has also claimed that some amendments are a complete misfit and that there are other ways to deal with such issues. He has also warned that the TCS provisions are vulnerable and stand at the peril of being declared unconstitutional

Advocate Rahul Sarda has argued that section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, which was enacted to deal with the concept of taxing “deemed unexplained income“, is a striking example of the poor quality of drafting by the legislature which has led to a proliferation of unnecessary litigation. He has pointed out that the over-zealousness and non-application of mind by Assessing Officers has compounded the problem. He has also considered whether taxpayers caught up in the web of litigation should opt for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. He has also advised, with clarity, on the merits and demerits of opting for the scheme

CA Rohan Sogani has explained in a comprehensive manner the tax implications of buy-back of shares. He has also opined on whether the provisions of sections 56(2)(x) and 50CA and GAAR apply. The relevant provisions of the Companies Act and the Stamp Act have also been referred. The author has also drawn attention to the important judgements which have a bearing on the issue

CA Sunil Maloo has pointed out that the in the latest Budget session, the Government had tried to cut the wings of stateless Indian Citizen who used to devise means to avoid taxation in India. In the backdrop of this, the Government amended provisions of Section 6 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the same appears to have backfired. The author has highlighted the other side of the coin of the recently introduced deemed residency provisions

Advocate Ajay R. Singh has culled out in a systematic manner the important principles of law emanating from the recent judgement of the Supreme Court in New Delhi Television Ltd vs. DCIT. He has also applied his mind to the applicability of the second proviso to section 147 with respect to an asset or financial interest in a foreign country. He has also considered whether the amendment to section 150(1) to lift the embargo of limitation under section 149 applies prospectively or has retrospective effect

Snehal Kanzarkar, a law student, has explained the amendments brought by the Finance Act 2020 relating to equalization levy. She has also explained the need for the levy, its scope, exceptions and the reforms brought in by the Finance Act 2020. She has delved into the major challenges involved in the implementation of the levy and proposed suggestions for resolution of the issues. The author has argued that equalization levy is a much required reform for prevention of tax-evasion by foreign e-commerce entities. She has, however, suggested that the implementation of the same may be deterred till the challenges posed by COVID-19 are resolved because a majority of the required services are provided online

The recent judgement of the Supreme Court in New Delhi Television Ltd vs. DCIT has laid down important principles of law relating to the reopening of assessments under sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act. Rubal Bansal, Advocate and Company Secretary, has studied the judgement in detail and explained its nuances. She has also summarized the core principles of the judgement in a succinct manner

Advocate Shashi Ashok Bekal has conducted a systematic analysis of the numerous important amendments ushered in by the Finance Act 2020. He has explained in a comprehensive manner the current law, the proposed law, the amendment to the proposed law, and its implications on tax payers and tax man