Month: July 2020

Advocate Aditya Ajgaonkar has vehemently argued that section 194N of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which creates an obligation to deduct tax at source at the time of withdrawal of cash, violates Articles 21, 265 and 300A of the Constitution. He has put forth his arguments in a logical and persuasive manner and has made extensive reference to several landmark judgements

CA Vinay V. Kawdia has explained the entire law, relating to the taxation of a slump sale under sections 2(42C) and 50B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the format of a FAQ. He has answered all conceivable questions and also referred to all the important judgements on the subject. The implications under the GST have also been briefly referred to

Advocate P. C. Yadav has pointed out there is presently a conflict of opinion amongst the various Benches of the Tribunal as to the correct interpretation of the term “tested party” in the Transfer Pricing regulations read with the OECD Guidelines. The ld. author has explained the genesis of the conflict and requested that it should be resolved speedily, preferably by a judgement of the Special Bench

CA Naresh Kumar Kabra has provided interesting insights into the provisions of The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006. He has pointed out that certain important changes in the definition of MSME have been incorporated under the “Atmanirbhar Bharat Package” and a new procedure of Udyam Registration has also been introduced. All of these important aspects have been explained by the ld. author in a succinct manner

Advocate Sashank Dundu has explained in detail the entire law under sections 28(iv) and 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 relating to the taxability of waiver of loans, given for capital purposes and for trading purposes. The learned author has referred to all the important judgements on the issue and explained precisely their implications. He has also offered valuable practical guidance on the documentation that assessees should maintain to ensure that the waiver of their loans is taxed correctly and as per the law

In Ramnath & Co. vs. CIT, the Supreme Court has taken the view that a beneficial provision has to be interpreted ‘strictly’ and the benefit of an ambiguity in its interpretation should go to the Revenue. Advocates Harsh M. Kapadia and Ravi Sawana have argued that this view is erroneous and runs counter to the law laid down by the Supreme Court itself in several earlier judgements. The ld. authors have backed up their submission with a detailed discussion and given persuasive reasoning

CA Pranshu Singhal has prepared a useful guide in which he has explained the various amendments ushered in by the Finance Act, 2020 to the law on registration of charitable trusts and institutions under the Income Tax Act, 1961. He has highlighted the problems that the entities are likely to face and also offered suggestions on the remedies available. The recent amendments announced by the Finance Minister in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic, as applicable to charitable entities, have been duly referred to by the ld. author

CA Pratik Sandbhor has analyzed the entire law relating to the power of enhancement of an assessment in appellate proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961. He has referred to all the issues that arise in the context of enhancement and answered them with clarity and with reference to the judgements on the point. The article will prove invaluable as a ready referencer of the law on the subject

CA Ashish Chadha has explained the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Rule 11UAC of the Income-tax Rules 1962 (which was inserted vide Notification No. 40/2020 dated 29th June 2020). He has pointed out the Rule provides relief from the levy of income-tax in case of resolution of stressed companies under specific scenarios, where the resolution is either initiated by the Central Government keeping the public interest in mind, i.e. the cases involving oppression and mismanagement, or in special cases like that of Yes Bank

The Finance Act, 2017 has amended section 153A of the Income-tax Act to empower an assessing officer to issue notice to an assessee beyond 6 assessment years but not beyond ten assessment years. CA Rohit Kapoor has dealt with the important question whether the extended period of limitation for reopening assessment could be resorted to for reopening proceedings which were already barred by limitation on the date of the amendment made by the Finance Act 2017 (01-04-2017). He has cited numerous judicial precedents in his analysis