We are a family of strong 800+ people including 470+ professionals working from 14 locations across India.
We have a rich heritage and enduring legacy which are pivotal in shaping trust, excellence, and unparalleled legal expertise, thus building a strong reputation and a trusted brand.
We started in 1985 in a single room set up by the two founders with no prior experience of working in a law firm. Both the founders had outstanding academic records and focused on their deep understanding of the law to form the foundation of the firm.
Integrity, Knowledge and Passion are the principles that resonate with every member of our LKS family and the work that we do. These values drive us to build a community of legally sound professionals and well-serviced clients.
Everything we have accomplished over the last four decades is a result of our unique way of thinking which is deeply influenced by our core values and principles that define us.
We and our professionals consistently garner appreciation for the quality of our services and the depth of our legal expertise. This consistent acknowledgment serves as a testament to our unwavering commitment to exceed expectations.
Tribunal’s power to grant stay: The case of Pepsi Foods
By Samyak Lohade
Recently, the Supreme Court in DCIT v. Pepsi Foods Ltd. examined the power of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) to grant stay, as well as certain amendments which provided for automatic vacation of stay granted by the ITAT. The article in this issue of Direct Tax Amicus analyses the legislative history in the matter of grant of stay by the Tribunal with the help of notable judicial precedents. The author traces the history of this issue right from the Apex Court’s decision in the case of ITO v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi to the amendments by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, Finance Act, 2001, Finance Act, 2007 and Finance Act, 2008. He notes that though the Supreme Court has struck down the word ‘even’ and the words ‘is not’ after the words ‘delay in disposing of the appeal’ in the third proviso to Section 254(2A) as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Finance Act, 2020 has again made certain amendments to Section 254 and introduced more conditions and limitation to the power of the Tribunal in grant of stay of recovery of demand. The article concludes by stating that it appears that the Tribunal can no longer exercise its independence in granting complete stay and the only recourse available is to approach the High Court...
Notifications
Form 12BA under Rule 26A(2) revised – Employer to furnish various additional details including stock options allotted
Payments to non-residents – New rule introduced for online application for lower withholding
CIT(A)s for jurisdiction under Black Money Act notified
Classification of ‘search case’ under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act 2020 clarified
Extension of certain reporting requirements in Form 3CD until 31 March 2022
Re-registrations of trusts under Section 12AB – Rules and Forms notified
Applications for condonation of delay in filing of Form 10B and 10BB for years prior to A.Y. 2018-19 to be disposed within 3 months
‘Potential cases’ for issuance of notice under Section 148
Due dates extended for passing of specified Orders, issuance of notices and linking Aadhaar with PAN
Faceless assessment – Class of cases for Section 144B specified
Ratio decidendi
Payment made by resident software importers for shrink-wrapped software is not ‘royalty’ – Supreme Court
Vivad se Vishwas Scheme not debarred by prosecution initiated on issue unrelated to tax arrears in particular AY – Bombay HC strikes down FAQ 73 of Circular No. 21/2020
Refund of taxes paid in foreign jurisdictions not available in absence of any tax liability in India – Tax paid however available as business expenditure – ITAT Mumbai
Cancellation of registration under Section 12A effective from date of conclusion of hearings for cancellation of registration – Option of assessee to avail the benefit of Section 11 – ITAT Mumbai
Sums paid by company to shareholder and adjusted later against security deposit and rentals are not deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e) – Karnataka High Court
