CA Mohit Gupta has expressed his views on the controversial question whether section 245K(2) of the Income-tax Act imposes a total bar on the filing of subsequent applications for settlement or whether the bar is applicable only in respect of an application in respect of the same assessment year. He has opined that the judgement of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Abdul Rahim vs. ITSC 96 taxmann.com 571 does not lay down the correct law and requires to be reconsidered and/or superceded by a legislative amendment

Section 270AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides taxpayers with immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270A and prosecution under sections 276C and 276CC of the Act. Advocate Sameer Bhatia has analyzed the provision in detail and explained its nuances. He has also advised on the circumstances in which assessees should, and should not, opt for the immunity and should instead choose to contest the penalty and prosecution on merits

CAs Mukesh Dholakiya and Archit Sheth have explained the implications of a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act from the point of view of jewellery which is found during the search. The rights and obligations of the assessee have been clearly spelt out alongwith a reference to all the relevant legislative provisions, judicial pronouncements and circulars of the CBDT. A pdf copy of the article is available for download

Advocates Mahendra Gargieya and Hemang Gargieya have prepared a comprehensive guide in which they have explained the entire law and procedure relating to e-assessments under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ld. authors have also drawn on their experience and given practical tips on what precautions taxpayers should take to ensure proper representation. The guide will prove very useful to all taxpayers and professionals. A pdf copy of the guide is available for download

Advocate Anuj Kisnadwala has eloquently voiced the dilemma that all taxpayers are presently facing with regard to the payment of advance-tax. While non-payment attracts levy of interest, excess payment creates the problem of seeking a refund. The ld. author has pointed out that in any event, interest is payable at only 0.75% and not at 1% as prescribed by section 234C of the Act. He has also opined, relying on judicial precedents, that interest under section 234C of the Act can be charged only for the actual period of default and not for the entire period of three months

Advocate Parveen Kumar Bansal (Former ITAT Vice President) and CA Gaurav Bansal have explained the entire law relating to the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court under Articles 133 and 136 of the Constitution with respect to appeals and Special Leave Petitions. The question as to whether the admission or dismissal of a SLP results in a merger of the High Court’s order into that of the Supreme Court’s has also been dealt with. All the important judgements have been referred to in detail. A pdf copy of the article is available for download

CA. Pankaj Agrwal has raised the important question whether the amendment to section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Taxation Laws (Second) Amendment Act, 2016, is prospective or retrospective. He has argued that the amendment is prospective and made good his contention with a detailed discussion of the statutory provisions and case laws

Advocates Amol Sinha and Ashvini Kumar have pointed out that though the law is very clear on the procedure that has to be followed by the Assessing Officer when reopening an assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, the same is often not followed. When the assessees challenge the breach, Courts tend to remand the entire matter back to the AO for being redone. The learned authors have argued that the practice of remand causes unnecessary hardship and harassment to the assessees. They have submitted that Courts ought to quash the proceedings and declare them void ab initio. This will also send a clear message to the AOs that they should always follow the proper procedure

CA Tilak Chandna has raised the interesting question whether The Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act, 1988 as amended by the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act, 2016, has retrospective or retroactive operation? He has answered the question in a clear-cut manner after an extensive research into the legislative scheme and several important judicial precedents

CA Chandrakant K Thakkar has prepared a compilation in which he has traced the legislative history of section 56(2) of the Income-tax Act and explained the rationale of the numerous amendments. He has also set out in a tabular format the various controversial issues that have arisen to date and the judicial pronouncements which answer them