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.
Is Section 132(4A) a free getaway pass for the assessees? – An analysis of Allahabad High Court ruling in Ajay Gupta v. CIT
By Janane G
Section 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers an Assessing Officer to presume that anything that is found in searched premises belongs to the occupant of such premises. However, this power to presume is not absolute in the hands of the Assessing Officer, in that the presumption is rebuttable. The article in this issue of Direct Tax Amicus hence attempts to elucidate the scope and extent of the presumption contained in Section 132(4A) in light of a recent judgement of Allahabad High Court in the case Ajay Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax. Elaborately analysing the judgement, the author states that if the view taken by the Court is to be accepted, then mere denial of knowledge of the documents found during the search, without any reasonable explanation to deny the same, would be sufficient to obtain a free pass from the addition being made, unless proven to the contrary by the department. However, according to the author, if this is the case, the purpose of inserting sub-section 4A into the Act will fail since the onus to prove that the document belongs to the person searched would again fall on the department as it existed prior to the amendment...
Circular
Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 – Clarifications
Reporting requirement under clauses 30C and 44 of Tax Audit Report in Form 3CD deferred till 31-03-2021
Residency under Section 6 of Income Tax Act, for 2019-20, clarified
Ratio decidendi
Payments to Foreign Cricket Boards, linked with matches in India, liable to TDS under Section 194E – Obligation not affected by DTAA – Supreme Court
No addition to be made under Section 68 in hands of firm once source of contribution made by partner established – Allahabad High Court
Taxability of loan given by an entity to its sister concern – Section 2(22)(e) when not invokable – Reassessment when not correct – Gujarat High Court
Section 40(a)(ia) is attracted only if expenses are claimed in profit and loss account – ITAT New Delhi
Guideline value of property – First proviso to Section 50C is retrospectively applicable – ITAT Chennai
