Author: editor

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

CA Rohan Sogani has explained in a comprehensive manner the tax implications of buy-back of shares. He has also opined on whether the provisions of sections 56(2)(x) and 50CA and GAAR apply. The relevant provisions of the Companies Act and the Stamp Act have also been referred. The author has also drawn attention to the important judgements which have a bearing on the issue

CA Sunil Maloo has pointed out that the in the latest Budget session, the Government had tried to cut the wings of stateless Indian Citizen who used to devise means to avoid taxation in India. In the backdrop of this, the Government amended provisions of Section 6 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the same appears to have backfired. The author has highlighted the other side of the coin of the recently introduced deemed residency provisions

Advocate Ajay R. Singh has culled out in a systematic manner the important principles of law emanating from the recent judgement of the Supreme Court in New Delhi Television Ltd vs. DCIT. He has also applied his mind to the applicability of the second proviso to section 147 with respect to an asset or financial interest in a foreign country. He has also considered whether the amendment to section 150(1) to lift the embargo of limitation under section 149 applies prospectively or has retrospective effect