CA Tanpreet Kohli has analyzed in detail the impact upon Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) of the amendment to section 6 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Finance Act 2020. He has pointed out that while the amendment is intended to plug tax planning by way of residential status, there are several challenges that will arise during its interpretation and this may lead to litigation between the taxpayers and the authorities

CA. Pankaj Agrwal has raised several interesting and important questions relating to the law governing a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). He has provided a detailed explanation of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and also referred to all the landmark judgements of the Supreme Court which have interpreted the law

In PILCOM vs. CIT, the Supreme Court has held that the obligation of the payer to deduct Tax at Source is not affected by the fact that the income may not be taxable in the hands of the recipient under a DTAA. The judgement has created confusion as it appears to run counter to the earlier judgements of the Supreme Court. Saurabh N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate, and Bandish S. Soparkar, Advocate, have studied the judgement in depth and explained it in the proper perspective

CAs Nidhi Surana, Vidhan Surana and Palak Bhatt have pointed out that Assessing Officers are reluctant to issue refunds and that the mechnism laid down in the Act is only on paper. They have explained, with reference to the judgements on the point, that the action of withholding refund under section 241A of the Act, pursuant to notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, without recording justifiable reasons and approved in a routine manner by the PCIT tantamounts to exercise of power without jurisdiction and is not legally sustainable in the eyes of law

CA Piyush Bafna has explained the subtle but important distinction between the various types of deeming provisions that are prevalent in a statute. He has pointed out that within the Income-tax Act itself, there are numerous deeming provisions such as sections 2(22)(e), 9, 11, 41, 50C, etc. He has explained the nuances of these provisions and also drawn attention to the important judgements on the point. A pdf copy of the article is available for download

CA. Vinay V. Kawdia has provided interesting insights into the law on taxation of Joint Development Agreements (JDA). He has identified the numerous controversies arising therein. He has provided a clear-cut analysis of the statutory provisions and also given practical examples to explain their impact. A large number of important judicial precedents have also been referred to

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