Month: September 2020

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) conducted a performance audit on search and seizure assessments of the Income Tax Department. The report has several interesting insights and makes valuable recommendations. CA Mohit Gupta has summarized the key points of the report in a succinct and clear manner

CA Pratik Sandbhor has highlighted the important aspects of the newly introduced Faceless Appeals Scheme and also explained its implications. He has dwelt upon the consequences of non-grant of a personal hearing and also the concept of “review” of the draft appellate order. The ld. author has also pointed out that there are several issues that need clarification from the CBDT for the smooth implementation of the scheme

Advocate Fenil Bhatt has submitted that the prevalent judicial view that ‘education cess’ is not affected by the bar in section 40(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and is allowable as a deduction requires reconsideration. He has argued that education cess is nothing but the State’s right in the profits of the Assessee, akin to income tax, is in the nature of distribution of income, and is not eligible for deduction

Advocate V. P. Gupta has argued that sub-section (1H) of section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which comes into effect on 1st October 2020, will not serve any purpose but will instead raise a number of difficulties in implementation. The ld. author has requested the CBDT to either withdraw the statutory provision or to at least clarify the issues identified by him

Advocate Arjun Gupta has prepared a comprehensive guide in which the entire law relating to the grant of stay of demand has been explained. All possible scenarios have been visualized by the ld. author. He has referred to all the CBDT Circulars and judicial pronouncements and also provided valuable comments to explain the law clearly

CAs Pankaj Agrwal and Sandeep Kumar Jain have dealt with the interesting issue whether a professional is entitled to rely on Section 44ADA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and declare his income as being 50% of the gross receipts even though the actual income is in fact higher. They have also considered whether there is a risk of the Department claiming in later years that the difference between the actual income (reflected by investments) and returned income is “undisclosed income”

Advocate V. P. Gupta has explained the scheme of faceless assessments and appeals in a precise manner. He has compared the provisions of the scheme with that prevalent in the USA and pinpointed the advantages and benefits to taxpayers. The ld. author has identified a few issues where clarifications from the Government is desired. He has also offered valuable suggestions on how the scheme can be made better

CA Rajat Power has pointed out that section 44AB of the income-tax Act, 1961, which provides for tax audit of certain taxpayers, has been amended in the recent past in order to relax the compliance burden on small taxpayers. However, while these amendments are well-intentioned, they have increased confusion amongst taxpayers. The Ld. author has explained the law in a simple manner and provided clarity on the subject

CA Rohan Sogani has dealt with the important issue whether electronic data/information found in hard disks, pen drives, etc is admissible as evidence for the Income-tax Department to make additions and disallowances. The ld. author has explained the law in the context of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Evidence Act, 1872. He has referred to all the important judgements and also emphasized the procedures that the Department is duty bound to follow to ensure the admissibility of the evidence. A pdf copy of the article is available for download