Author: editor

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

Advocate Arjun Gupta has explained the entire law relating to revision of assessments by the CIT under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ld. author has clearly delineated the extent of the power of the CIT and its limitations. The implications of Explanation 2 to section 263, which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2015, have also been explained in a succinct manner. All the important judgements on the subject have been referred to

CA Rohit Kapoor has conducted a detailed study of section 153C and allied provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which deal with search assessments. He has identified all the specific controversies that arise and answered them with clarity with reference to the statutory provisions and judicial precedents. A pdf copy of the article is available for download

Rajya Sabha MP and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal delivered a lecture titled the Art of Advocacy in which he explained some important practices for success in court