Advocates Nishant Thakkar, Hiten Chande and Jasmin Amalsadvala have made out a compelling case as to why the Equalisation Levy is constitutionally invalid. The learned authors have explained with the aid of practical examples that the levy has extra-territorial operation and fails the Nexus test and the Object test. They have also argued that the Equalisation levy is nothing but an alternate form to computing and collecting Income-tax and that the provisions of a DTAA must be available for application and due benefit

CA Vinay V. Kawdia has explained in a systematic manner the TDS provisions as applicable to Co-operative societies/Banks (as a payer/payee of interest other than interest on securities) after considering the related amendments by Finance Act 2020. He has cited the relevant judgements to support his propositions

Advocate Shashi Ashok Bekal has complimented the CBDT for its proactiveness in clarifying the doubts of taxpayers. However, he has pointed out that certain important doubts have still not been clarified. He has requested the CBDT to take a liberal view regarding these issues and issue a speedy clarification. He has assured that a timely clarification would not only help tax payers and the taxman but will also play a role with respect to achieving the desired results for the administration

Advocate Narayan Jain, LL.M, has explained in detail the provisions of section 271AAD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provides for the imposition of penalty. He has also dealt with the corresponding provisions in the GST Act. He has cautioned taxpayers to cross-check all entries with the vendors and customers as any negligence or mistake can expose them to imposition of heavy penalties under the Income tax as well as under GST

CA Sujay Ajgaonkar has pointed out that China’s fall from grace over the mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic has presented an opportunity to India to project itself as a manufacturing alternative to China. He has also pointed out that India’s economic landscape and the recent tax reforms make it very attractive to foreign companies. He has explained the legal position with reference to section 115BAB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (tax on income of new manufacturing domestic companies) and the discontinuance of Dividend Distribution Tax (“DDT”)

CA Nidhi Surana has conducted an exhaustive study of the provisions of section 271AAD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which imposes penalty for false entries etc in the books of account. She has explained the precise scope of the section with reference to practical examples and case laws. She has opined that the provision is too wide in its scope and poses the danger of being abused by Assessing Officers

CA Sanjay Mody has pointed out that the result of the amendment made by the Finance Act 2020 to section 17(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act is that the contributions made by the employer in NPS account of the employee, after being included as ‘Salary’ in the hands of the employee, may also be included as ‘Perquisite’ in computing his or her taxable salary income, resulting in double taxation. He has urged the Government to rectify the ambiguity as it will otherwise lead to litigation and also frustrate the social objective of the NPS

Advocate Neelam Jadav has collated all the important judgements of the Bombay High Court delivered in the period from January 2019 to February 2020. She has arranged all the judgements section-wise to aid reference. Several of the judgements are not yet reported in the Journals. She has also highlighted the cases where the Supreme Court has granted or rejected Special Leave Petitions

Advocate Dharan Gandhi has traced the legislative history relating to ‘Tax Collection At Source’ (TCS). He has argued that while the purpose of the legislation is laudable, the means to achieve such purpose are not correct or apt. He has also claimed that some amendments are a complete misfit and that there are other ways to deal with such issues. He has also warned that the TCS provisions are vulnerable and stand at the peril of being declared unconstitutional

Advocate Rahul Sarda has argued that section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, which was enacted to deal with the concept of taxing “deemed unexplained income“, is a striking example of the poor quality of drafting by the legislature which has led to a proliferation of unnecessary litigation. He has pointed out that the over-zealousness and non-application of mind by Assessing Officers has compounded the problem. He has also considered whether taxpayers caught up in the web of litigation should opt for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. He has also advised, with clarity, on the merits and demerits of opting for the scheme