Advocate Anuj Kisnadwala has eloquently voiced the dilemma that all taxpayers are presently facing with regard to the payment of advance-tax. While non-payment attracts levy of interest, excess payment creates the problem of seeking a refund. The ld. author has pointed out that in any event, interest is payable at only 0.75% and not at 1% as prescribed by section 234C of the Act. He has also opined, relying on judicial precedents, that interest under section 234C of the Act can be charged only for the actual period of default and not for the entire period of three months

Advocate Parveen Kumar Bansal (Former ITAT Vice President) and CA Gaurav Bansal have explained the entire law relating to the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court under Articles 133 and 136 of the Constitution with respect to appeals and Special Leave Petitions. The question as to whether the admission or dismissal of a SLP results in a merger of the High Court’s order into that of the Supreme Court’s has also been dealt with. All the important judgements have been referred to in detail. A pdf copy of the article is available for download

CA. Pankaj Agrwal has raised the important question whether the amendment to section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Taxation Laws (Second) Amendment Act, 2016, is prospective or retrospective. He has argued that the amendment is prospective and made good his contention with a detailed discussion of the statutory provisions and case laws

Advocates Amol Sinha and Ashvini Kumar have pointed out that though the law is very clear on the procedure that has to be followed by the Assessing Officer when reopening an assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, the same is often not followed. When the assessees challenge the breach, Courts tend to remand the entire matter back to the AO for being redone. The learned authors have argued that the practice of remand causes unnecessary hardship and harassment to the assessees. They have submitted that Courts ought to quash the proceedings and declare them void ab initio. This will also send a clear message to the AOs that they should always follow the proper procedure

CA Tilak Chandna has raised the interesting question whether The Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act, 1988 as amended by the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act, 2016, has retrospective or retroactive operation? He has answered the question in a clear-cut manner after an extensive research into the legislative scheme and several important judicial precedents

CA Chandrakant K Thakkar has prepared a compilation in which he has traced the legislative history of section 56(2) of the Income-tax Act and explained the rationale of the numerous amendments. He has also set out in a tabular format the various controversial issues that have arisen to date and the judicial pronouncements which answer them

Advocate Rano Jain, a former Member of the ITAT, has explained the intricacies of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules which gives a right to the Respondent before the ITAT to support the order of the CIT(A) on any ground decided against him, notwithstanding the fact that he may not have challenged the order. The learned author has analyzed the important judgements on the point and explained clearly the extent of the right and its limitations, including whether the Appellant can be worse-off as a result of the invocation of the Rule by the Respondent

CA Sunil Maloo has pointed out that under the First Proviso to Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a burden is cast upon the AO, in cases relating to reopening after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year, to show that income has escaped assessment due to a failure on the part of the assessee to make a full and true disclosure of the material facts. The ld. author has referred to all the important judgements and submitted that the AO has to give particulars of what facts were omitted to be disclosed for valid exercise of jurisdiction and a mere bald assertion by him is not sufficient

CA Ketan Vajani has systematically analyzed the large number of amendments relating to Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) and Tax Collection at Source (TCS) which have been inserted by the Finance Act 2020. He has explained the scope of these provisions with the aid of judicial precedents. He has pointed out that several provisions are complex and will lead to confusion and practical difficulties during implementation. He has identified the problem issues and requested the CBDT to issue a suitable clarification

Advocate Anuj Kisnadwala has raised the pertinent question as to whether a new asset which is lying idle due to the CoronaVirus Pandemic can be said to be “used” for business purposes so to be eligible for depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ld. author has explained the distinction between ‘ready to use‘ and ‘forced idleness‘. He has pointed out that the CBDT has the power u/s 119 of the Act to give relief to the assessees in such cases. He has also explained the remedies available to the taxpayer should the CBDT not be willing to grant relief