In this 99th edition, we bring you articles covering the recent pronouncement of Supreme Court in Ganapati Dealcom, where in it was held that the benami transaction (prohibition) act is applicable prospectively and not retrospectively. This is a landmark judgment, since it puts rest to all the proceedings initiated before the enactment of amendment act in 2016.
The next article is on the issues that would arise under GST laws when a partner retires from the firm by taking the exact amount that was lying to credit of his capital and current account and in instances where he takes more than that. Though the said issues were covered by the new sections in the income tax act, the position under GST laws is unclear as of now. Hence, there is a requirement for the Central Government to formulate provisions or give clear instructions before the litigation crops up.
The next article is on the determination of date for issuance of notice under income tax act for the purposes of Section 148. The Delhi High Court has framed five scenarios under which the date of issue of notice needs to be determined. Though it is held that such notices are to be treated as issued after 1st April 2021, being time barred for carrying the assessment/re-assessment, the same is saved by the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ashish Agarwal, wherein it was held that such notices to be treated as valid. However, the Delhi High Court’s judgement will be pretty useful for future issues.
I hope that you will have good time reading this edition and please do share your feedback. I will also urge clients to mail us topics or issues on which you want us to deliberate in our future editions, so that we can contribute to the same.
Key Topics:
GST
DIRECT TAX
