Author: editor

CA Anilkumar Shah has explained the law relating to the taxation of donations to the corpus of a trust which is not registered under sections 12A/AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. He has analyzed the statutory provisions and the important judgements on the point. He has also offered valuable guidance on what trusts should do in practice to be able to argue that the corpus donations received by them are capital in nature and not taxable as income

CA Rajendra Agiwal has provided valuable insights on the question whether a notice issued in the name of a deceased assessee is valid or not. He has also analyzed whether the “co-operation” of the legal representatives makes a difference to the legal position in the context of section 292BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. All the relevant statutory provisions and important judgements of the Courts and Tribunal have been referred to by the ld. author

Advocate Arjun Gupta has provided much needed clarity on the law relating to the levy of penalty under sections 271(1)(c), 270A and 270AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. He has put the statutory provisions in their correct perspective and also delat with all the important judgements of the Supreme Court and High Courts as well as Circulars issued by the CBDT. He has also opined on whether an assessee should be allowed to escape penalty on the ground that the default was by “inadvertence”

Section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 imposes strict consequences upon the payer of a sum for failure to deduct tax at source and/ or for failing to deposit the TDS with the Government. CA Manoj Kumar Mittal has explained the provision in the form of a FAQ. All important questions which are of day-to-day relevance have been asnwered by the learned author in the FAQ

Advocate Aditya Ajgaonkar has vehemently argued that section 194N of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which creates an obligation to deduct tax at source at the time of withdrawal of cash, violates Articles 21, 265 and 300A of the Constitution. He has put forth his arguments in a logical and persuasive manner and has made extensive reference to several landmark judgements

CA Vinay V. Kawdia has explained the entire law, relating to the taxation of a slump sale under sections 2(42C) and 50B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the format of a FAQ. He has answered all conceivable questions and also referred to all the important judgements on the subject. The implications under the GST have also been briefly referred to

Advocate P. C. Yadav has pointed out there is presently a conflict of opinion amongst the various Benches of the Tribunal as to the correct interpretation of the term “tested party” in the Transfer Pricing regulations read with the OECD Guidelines. The ld. author has explained the genesis of the conflict and requested that it should be resolved speedily, preferably by a judgement of the Special Bench

CA Naresh Kumar Kabra has provided interesting insights into the provisions of The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006. He has pointed out that certain important changes in the definition of MSME have been incorporated under the “Atmanirbhar Bharat Package” and a new procedure of Udyam Registration has also been introduced. All of these important aspects have been explained by the ld. author in a succinct manner

Advocate Sashank Dundu has explained in detail the entire law under sections 28(iv) and 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 relating to the taxability of waiver of loans, given for capital purposes and for trading purposes. The learned author has referred to all the important judgements on the issue and explained precisely their implications. He has also offered valuable practical guidance on the documentation that assessees should maintain to ensure that the waiver of their loans is taxed correctly and as per the law

In Ramnath & Co. vs. CIT, the Supreme Court has taken the view that a beneficial provision has to be interpreted ‘strictly’ and the benefit of an ambiguity in its interpretation should go to the Revenue. Advocates Harsh M. Kapadia and Ravi Sawana have argued that this view is erroneous and runs counter to the law laid down by the Supreme Court itself in several earlier judgements. The ld. authors have backed up their submission with a detailed discussion and given persuasive reasoning