Advocate Rano Jain, a former Member of the ITAT, has explained the intricacies of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules which gives a right to the Respondent before the ITAT to support the order of the CIT(A) on any ground decided against him, notwithstanding the fact that he may not have challenged the order. The learned author has analyzed the important judgements on the point and explained clearly the extent of the right and its limitations, including whether the Appellant can be worse-off as a result of the invocation of the Rule by the Respondent

CA Sunil Maloo has pointed out that under the First Proviso to Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a burden is cast upon the AO, in cases relating to reopening after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year, to show that income has escaped assessment due to a failure on the part of the assessee to make a full and true disclosure of the material facts. The ld. author has referred to all the important judgements and submitted that the AO has to give particulars of what facts were omitted to be disclosed for valid exercise of jurisdiction and a mere bald assertion by him is not sufficient

CA Ketan Vajani has systematically analyzed the large number of amendments relating to Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) and Tax Collection at Source (TCS) which have been inserted by the Finance Act 2020. He has explained the scope of these provisions with the aid of judicial precedents. He has pointed out that several provisions are complex and will lead to confusion and practical difficulties during implementation. He has identified the problem issues and requested the CBDT to issue a suitable clarification

Advocate Anuj Kisnadwala has raised the pertinent question as to whether a new asset which is lying idle due to the CoronaVirus Pandemic can be said to be “used” for business purposes so to be eligible for depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ld. author has explained the distinction between ‘ready to use‘ and ‘forced idleness‘. He has pointed out that the CBDT has the power u/s 119 of the Act to give relief to the assessees in such cases. He has also explained the remedies available to the taxpayer should the CBDT not be willing to grant relief

Advocate Parveen Kumar Bansal (Former ITAT Vice President) and CA Gaurav Bansal have pointed out that the Central Processing Centre (CPC) is making adjustments u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income tax Act for alleged “mistakes” in the returns of income, without considering the objections of the assessee and giving reasons. The ld. authors have pointed out that this practice of the CPC is contrary to the law and CBDT Circulars and is leading to wasteful litigation and harassment. They have requested the CBDT to intervene and issue necessary directions. A pdf copy of the article is available for download

CA Mohit Gupta has pointed out that under section 153D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the prior approval of the JCIT is necessary before an assessment under sections 153A and 153C of the Act is passed. He has drawn attention to important judgements which have held that if the approval is granted by the JCIT in a mechanical manner and without application of mind, the assessment is vitiated. A pdf copy of the article is available for download

CA Nidhi Surana has pointed out that as a Covid-19 relief measure, the Government has granted an extension in the due dates and also directed issue of pending refunds to assessees. However, it has maintained a studied silence on the issue of stay of demand. She has argued that if the Department is permitted to exercise coercive measures to recover demands, businesses will collapse and there will be an economic calamity. She has pleaded that the CBDT should issue immediate instructions and stay recovery of outstanding demands

In PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd 107 Taxmann.com 375, the Supreme Court considered the important issue whether proceedings initiated by the Department against a person who ceases to exist due to death or amalgamation is valid or not. CAs Nehal Shah and Tanupriya Patel have explained the true scope of the judgement and raised several pertinent follow-up questions. One of the interesting questions raised is whether, if the assessee’s successor omits to inform the Department of the death or amalgamation of an entity, the proceedings against the entity are curable and valid. A pdf copy of the article is available for download

Advocate Parveen Kumar Bansal (Former ITAT Vice President) and CA Gaurav Bansal have raised the interesting question whether the amendment to section 115BBE by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 to tax unexplained cash credits, investments, expenditures etc under sections 68 etc at the higher tax rate of 60% can have retrospective application. The ld. authors have canvassed the convincing argument that the increased tax rate is prospective and should be confined only to additions made on account of unexplained demonetized currency and not for other additions. A large number of judicial precedents have been relied upon to support the argument. A pdf copy of the article is available for download

Advocates Devendra Jain and Radha Halbe have pointed out that the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic is likely to lead to defaults in payment of salaries, rent, business transactions, execution of contracts etc. The ld. authors have systematically analyzed the tax implications of these defaults and explained whether the income will still be assessable in the hands of the assessee. A plethora of important judgements have been referred to by the ld. authors in support of their analysis