CA (Dr) Vardhaman Jain has dealt with the sensitive topic of the alleged “Trust Deficit” between the Income-tax Department and the taxpayers based on the recent interaction between Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudeo and Shri Pramod Chandra Mody, the Chairman of the CBDT. The learned author has provided his own insights into what has led to the deficit and has offered valuable suggestions on what the two parties can do to bridge the same. He has also dilated on the role that professionals can play in the process

Advocate Gaurav Jain has raised convincing arguments on the controversial question whether undisclosed income or undisclosed assets earned/acquired prior to the assessment year 2016-17 are covered by The Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. He has explained why, on a plain interpretation of the statutory provisions, the Act cannot be regarded as being retrospective or retroactive in operation. He has argued that if a contrary view is taken, the Act would fall foul of Article 20(1) of the Constitution

Advocate Kapil Goel has dealt with the various legal and procedural aspects of reopening of assessments under sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. He has referred to all the important judgements on the principles of natural justice and explained how its non-observance by the AO can prove fatal to the reassessment. He has also prepared a check-list of the manner in which taxpayers should respond to a reopening notice. Practical suggestions regarding the correspondence with the Department have also been offered

Advocate Sameer Bhatia has conducted an in-depth study of The Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 and explained its provisions. He has also explained the interplay between this Act and the Income-tax Act and the similarity and differences in their provisions. He has also dealt with the important question whether the said Act can be regarded as being discriminatory in nature

Advocate P. C. Yadav has explained the concept of “Most Appropriate Method” as referred to in section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 10C of the Income-tax Rules. He has collated all the important judgements on the subject and pointed out the various factors that a taxpayer has to take into account while choosing one of the several methods to benchmark his international transaction and prove that it is at arm’s length

Advocate Sukhsagar Syal has formulated the proposition that every assessee has a vested right to file an appeal and to obtain a stay of demand and that this right cannot be taken away by an amendment to the Act. He has argued that consequently the amendment to section 254 of the Income-tax Act (which takes away the Tribunal’s absolute power to grant stay) will apply only to those cases where the assessment order is passed on or after 1st April, 2020. In all other cases, the Tribunal will continue to hold the power of granting stay of demand without any restriction. He has supported his proposition with an extensive reference to several case laws

The question as to whether the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, as amended by the Benami Transactions (Prohibitions) Amendment Act, 2016, is prospective or retrospective is of vital importance to the several proceedings which are presently pending before the authorities. CA. Pankaj Agrwal has applied his mind to all the arguments and counter-arguments advanced by the contesting parties and expressed his opinion on the topic

Section 271AAD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was inserted by the Finance Act 2020, levies penalty for making a false entry or omission of an entry in the books of accounts. CA Rohit Kapoor has conducted a critical analysis of the provision and explained all of its nuances. He has also dealt with the various possibilities that can arise in day-to-day life and explained in a precise manner what the impact of the provision can be upon taxpayers

CA Rajat Powar has pointed out that section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which confers a deduction upon co-operative societies, is a hotbed of perennial litigation between taxpayers and the Department. Though there are a plethora of judgements on each point, they are often contradictory and confusing. The author has used his expertise in the subject and explained the relevant statutory provisions and judicial precedents with utmost clarity

CA Manoj Kumar has raised the innovative argument that the disallowance under section 43B r.w.s 36(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of non-payment of Provident Fund, ESI etc within the due date is not intended to cover genuine and routine cases of late payment but only those where the employer has misutilized the funds. He has also argued that in any event the issue is debatable and the CPC has no jurisdiction under section 143(1)(a) to make a adjustment. He has relied on several judgements to support his arguments. A pdf copy of the article is available for download