Advocate Gunjan Kakkad has done extensive research on the issue whether Section 99 of the Finance Act, 2020, which curbs the powers of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to grant stay, is constitutionally valid. He has put forward his arguments in a logical manner and formulated several convincing propositions. He has aso relied upon a large number of judgements to buttress his propositions

Advocates Aarti Sathe and Niraj Sheth have prophesied that full digitization of litigation in the form of e-filing and virtual hearings will become a reality of our life in the near future. They have cited several real-life examples in our Country and in other Countries where virtual litigation has already been successfully conducted. The ld. authors have acknowledged the huge infrastructure challenges that have to be overcome to make the goal a reality and have offered a few suggestions on how it can be done

Advocate Fenil Bhatt has raised the seminal question whether the amendments by the Finance Act 2020 to section 254(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which curbs the powers of the Tribunal to grant a stay of demand, is constitutionally valid. The Ld. Author has argued that the amendment is not permissible as it affects the decision-making independence of the Tribunal and obstructs dispensation of justice. He has also pointed out that the amendment is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. No reasons have been given by the legislature as to the need for curbing the powers of the Tribunal. He has relied on several landmark judgements to support his contentions

Advocate Rahul Sarda has pointed out that the recent judgement of the Supreme Court in Basir Ahmed Sisodia vs. ITO 116 TM.com 375 (SC) upholds the fundamental tenet of taxation that tax proceedings are not adversary proceedings. Tax authorities are engaged only in the administrative act of adjusting a taxpayer’s liability. A taxpayer who has failed to bring on record all facts in the assessment proceedings to justify his claim can do so during the penalty proceedings and expect to succeed in the assessment proceedings

Section 271AAD, which was inserted by the Finance Act 2020 to levy penalty for ‘existence of any false entry’ or ‘omitting any entry’ has given rise to a controversy as to whether it applies to the assessment year 2020-21 or later. There is also debate on the precise meaning of the term “false entry”. CA. Pankaj Agrwal has considered both aspects and expressed his opinion in a clear manner

Advocate Sukhsagar Syal has explained the law relating to the grant of income-tax refunds in the context of the statutory provisions and the circulars issued by the CBDT. He has referred to all the important judgements on the subject including the latest judgement of the Supreme Court in Vodafone Idea Ltd vs. ACIT. He has opined that the legislature should stipulate a time limit for grant of refund to avoid unnecessary hardship to taxpayers

In Yum! Restaurants (Marketing) Pvt Lrd vs. CIT, the Supreme Court has laid down important principles of law concerning the taxation of mutual associations. CAs Satyajeet Goel and Himanshu Aggarwal have conducted a detailed study of the judgement. They have systematically analyzed the judgement and identified all the core principles of law emanating from it

CAs Naresh Kumar Kabra and Ankit Modi have provided valuable guidance on how businesses will have to adapt to survive the disruption caused by Covid-19. The authors have given pointers on how the cash crisis can be met through orthodox methods of cost cutting. They have also provided practical insights as to ‘What Comes After’ the lockdown and how to prepare for it. A pdf copy of the article is available for download

CA Nidhi Surana has explained the entire law relating to the levy of penalty on undisclosed income unearthed during search proceedings as contained in sections 271AAA and 271AAB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. She has also pin-pointed the numerous controversies that have arisen under these provisions. She has also referred to all the important judgements on the subject and explained their nuances

CA Sanjay Mody has raised the interesting question whether section 194N of the Income-tax Act 1961, which provides for deduction of tax at source in respect of cash withdrawal from banks etc, is Constitutionally valid. He has put forward the convincing argument that as a transaction of withdrawal of money by a person from his own bank account cannot give rise to income chargeable to tax, the question of subjecting such a transaction to TDS cannot arise. He has made good his contention by relying on several judgements