Advocate P. C. Yadav has explained the concept of “Most Appropriate Method” as referred to in section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 10C of the Income-tax Rules. He has collated all the important judgements on the subject and pointed out the various factors that a taxpayer has to take into account while choosing one of the several methods to benchmark his international transaction and prove that it is at arm’s length

Advocate Sukhsagar Syal has formulated the proposition that every assessee has a vested right to file an appeal and to obtain a stay of demand and that this right cannot be taken away by an amendment to the Act. He has argued that consequently the amendment to section 254 of the Income-tax Act (which takes away the Tribunal’s absolute power to grant stay) will apply only to those cases where the assessment order is passed on or after 1st April, 2020. In all other cases, the Tribunal will continue to hold the power of granting stay of demand without any restriction. He has supported his proposition with an extensive reference to several case laws

The question as to whether the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, as amended by the Benami Transactions (Prohibitions) Amendment Act, 2016, is prospective or retrospective is of vital importance to the several proceedings which are presently pending before the authorities. CA. Pankaj Agrwal has applied his mind to all the arguments and counter-arguments advanced by the contesting parties and expressed his opinion on the topic

Section 271AAD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was inserted by the Finance Act 2020, levies penalty for making a false entry or omission of an entry in the books of accounts. CA Rohit Kapoor has conducted a critical analysis of the provision and explained all of its nuances. He has also dealt with the various possibilities that can arise in day-to-day life and explained in a precise manner what the impact of the provision can be upon taxpayers

CA Rajat Powar has pointed out that section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which confers a deduction upon co-operative societies, is a hotbed of perennial litigation between taxpayers and the Department. Though there are a plethora of judgements on each point, they are often contradictory and confusing. The author has used his expertise in the subject and explained the relevant statutory provisions and judicial precedents with utmost clarity

CA Manoj Kumar has raised the innovative argument that the disallowance under section 43B r.w.s 36(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of non-payment of Provident Fund, ESI etc within the due date is not intended to cover genuine and routine cases of late payment but only those where the employer has misutilized the funds. He has also argued that in any event the issue is debatable and the CPC has no jurisdiction under section 143(1)(a) to make a adjustment. He has relied on several judgements to support his arguments. A pdf copy of the article is available for download

CA Mohit Gupta has expressed his views on the controversial question whether section 245K(2) of the Income-tax Act imposes a total bar on the filing of subsequent applications for settlement or whether the bar is applicable only in respect of an application in respect of the same assessment year. He has opined that the judgement of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Abdul Rahim vs. ITSC 96 taxmann.com 571 does not lay down the correct law and requires to be reconsidered and/or superceded by a legislative amendment

Section 270AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides taxpayers with immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270A and prosecution under sections 276C and 276CC of the Act. Advocate Sameer Bhatia has analyzed the provision in detail and explained its nuances. He has also advised on the circumstances in which assessees should, and should not, opt for the immunity and should instead choose to contest the penalty and prosecution on merits

CAs Mukesh Dholakiya and Archit Sheth have explained the implications of a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act from the point of view of jewellery which is found during the search. The rights and obligations of the assessee have been clearly spelt out alongwith a reference to all the relevant legislative provisions, judicial pronouncements and circulars of the CBDT. A pdf copy of the article is available for download

Advocates Mahendra Gargieya and Hemang Gargieya have prepared a comprehensive guide in which they have explained the entire law and procedure relating to e-assessments under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ld. authors have also drawn on their experience and given practical tips on what precautions taxpayers should take to ensure proper representation. The guide will prove very useful to all taxpayers and professionals. A pdf copy of the guide is available for download