|
|
|
| « From the Courts » |
|---|
 M/s. All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd.5th Floor, Diamond Square, C.S.T. Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E),Mumbai – 400 098. | |
| | Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1), Room No. 413, CR Building, New Delhi vs. Maharani Paints India Pvt. Ltd., TA-3/146-C, Tuglakabad Extn.,New Delhi | | Income Tax Officer, Ward 38(2), Room No. 234A, 2nd floor, CR Bldg., IP Estate, New Delhi vs. Sh. Naresh Kumar Through Legal Heir Sh. Naveen Kumar, 9307, Gaushala Marg, Kishan Ganj Delhi – 110 006 | | Mehru Electrical & Engg. (P) Ltd vs. CIT (Rajasthan High Court) | | Par nod to bill for High Courts in Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura | | Income Tax official gets 3-yr sentence in disproportionate assets case | | CIT vs. Sahara India Housing Corporation Ltd (Delhi High Court) | | NHRC suggests night courts to tackle overcrowding in prisons | | Courts increase, yet over 15,366 cases on hold for 21 years | | CIT vs. De Beers India Minerals Pvt Ltd (Karnataka High Court) | | CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd (Supreme Court) |
|
|
|
|
|
| « Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd vs. DGIT (Delhi High Court)... | Govt sidesteps courts on nurse postings... » |
Dinesh Chandra Agarwal vs. UOI (Allahabad High Court) |
|
|
| January, 27th 2012 |
As interim measure, Ex-ITAT Members permitted to practice before Benches where they were not posted
Rule 13E of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963 notified on June 3, 2009 imposes a ban on the practice by retired members before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Petitioner, a retired member of the Tribunal, filed a writ petition to challenge the said Rule as being ultra vires the provisions of s. 288 of the Act and s. 30 of Advocates Act 1961. HELD by the High Court granting interin relief:
Though, prima facie, the Rule appears to be a correct notification supposedly issued in public interest in line with the rules and practice clamping ban on the legal practice by the retired judges of High Court in the courts where they remain posted as permanent judge and the Tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court, however, it appears to be offensive in two respects; namely, that the retired members have been completely barred from practice before the Tribunal, and secondly, that the aforesaid rule 13E has been interpreted to apply retrospectively in the judgment rendered in the case of Concept Creations vs. ACIT 120 ITD 19 (Delhi) (Special Bench) by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, beyond its pale of competence as it has the jurisdiction to decide only the matters relating to tax appeals as contained in the Income Tax Act vide Sections 253 and 254 thereof.
Hence, issue notice to opposite party no.3 to show cause as to under what jurisdiction and authority, the Tribunal has interpreted Rule 13E as aforesaid in the judgment passed in the case of Concept Creations(supra) to the disadvantage of the retired members by imposing a complete ban on the practice before the Tribunal.
The petitioner may serve this notice dasti as well.
Till the next date of hearing, operation of the impugned rule 13E as well as the judgment in the case of Concept Creations shall remain stayed in so far as they impose a complete ban on the practice by retired members before the Tribunal.
Thus, it would be open for the retired members to practise before the Benches of Tribunal where they had not remained posted and held courts temporarily or on regular basis.
|
|
|
