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

CA Tanpreet Kohli has analyzed in detail the impact upon Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) of the amendment to section 6 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Finance Act 2020. He has pointed out that while the amendment is intended to plug tax planning by way of residential status, there are several challenges that will arise during its interpretation and this may lead to litigation between the taxpayers and the authorities

CA. Pankaj Agrwal has raised several interesting and important questions relating to the law governing a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). He has provided a detailed explanation of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and also referred to all the landmark judgements of the Supreme Court which have interpreted the law

In PILCOM vs. CIT, the Supreme Court has held that the obligation of the payer to deduct Tax at Source is not affected by the fact that the income may not be taxable in the hands of the recipient under a DTAA. The judgement has created confusion as it appears to run counter to the earlier judgements of the Supreme Court. Saurabh N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate, and Bandish S. Soparkar, Advocate, have studied the judgement in depth and explained it in the proper perspective

CAs Nidhi Surana, Vidhan Surana and Palak Bhatt have pointed out that Assessing Officers are reluctant to issue refunds and that the mechnism laid down in the Act is only on paper. They have explained, with reference to the judgements on the point, that the action of withholding refund under section 241A of the Act, pursuant to notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, without recording justifiable reasons and approved in a routine manner by the PCIT tantamounts to exercise of power without jurisdiction and is not legally sustainable in the eyes of law