Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. Mohit S. Shah of Bombay High Court has administered oath to the following new Judges on 23/1/2012.

1. Hon’ble Justice Mr. M.S. Sanklecha

2. Hon’ble Justice Mr. R.D. Dhanuka

3. Hon’ble Justice Mr. S.P. Deshmukh

4. Hon’ble Justice Mr. N.M. Jamdar

5. Hon’ble Justice Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav

The International Tax Review has paid rich tribute to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal calling it one of the 50 biggest influences in tax. It noted that Hon’ble Shri. G. E. Veerabhadrappa was recently appointed President of the Tribunal.

The Tribute came on the strength of the recognition that the “ITAT has released countless rulings on the treatment of transfer pricing in India, with more than 100 rulings in transfer pricing this year alone“.

What came as a pleasant surprise was the compliment paid by the prestigious journal that the ITAT “stands as a major influence in the approach to the practice, with tax payers all over the world using the numerous decisions as bench marks for their own documentation and transfer pricing strategy“.

The Journal identified four landmark judgements which it called “influential cases“. These were Gem Plus India Pvt Ltd vs ACIT 330 ITR 175, Abhishek Auto Industries Ltd vs DCIT 50 DTR 257, Cheil Communications 48 DTR 289 and Serdia Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt Ltd v ACIT 50 DTR 98 (Mum)

Sharing the tribute with the Tribunal for the position of “The 50 biggest influences in tax” is Hon’ble S. H. Kapadia, Chief Justice of India. Chief Justice Kapadia’s judgements in Morgan Stanley 292 ITR 416 (transfer pricing), GE India Technology (s. 195 TDS), Enron Oil & Gas (production sharing contracts) & Walfort Stocks & Shares 326 ITR 1 (dividend stripping) were hailed as having “gone a long way in clarifying the law“.

The International Tax Review also complimented the Chief Justice for the “clarity & simplicity” of his judgements and his approach in adopting a “more holistic approach to taxation“. It was also noted that the expected verdict by the Chief Justice’s Bench in the Vodafone International case will be the “first case of its kind anywhere in the world” and that “it is likely to lay down a marker for revenue authorities and tax practitioners everywhere on the taxation” of off-shore mergers and acquisitions.

We are pleased to announce that Hon’ble Shri. R. V. Easwar, President, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, has been appointed Judge of the Delhi High Court. Shri. Easwar is scheduled to take oath on 17.10.2011.

Shri Easwar has qualified as a Lawyer (LLM) and as a Chartered Accountant. He practiced as a Lawyer in Chennai till his appointment as Judicial Member on 11.11.1991. On 07.01.2005 Shri Easwar was elevated to the post of Vice President. On 04.06.2010, he was elevated to the post of Senior Vice President and finally became the President of the Tribunal on 4.6.2010.

In the course of his distinguished career in the Tribunal, Shri. Easwar has been a party to several landmark judgements, some of them being ITO vs. Sak Soft Ltd 121 TTJ (Che) (SB) 865 (s. 10B), Aarthi Shenoy vs. JCIT 75 ITD 100 (Bang) (SB) (capital gains), Surendra Engineering vs. ACIT 86 ITD 121 (Mum)(SB) (80HHC), Cadell Weaving Mills vs. ACIT 80 ITD 79 (Mum) (SB) (115J) etc.

In honour of Shri. Easwar‘s elevation as High Court Judge, a Full Court Farewell function was held today, 14.10.2011. The function was organized by the Tribunal and the Bar Association.

The Chairman of the function was Hon’ble Shri G. E. Veerabhadrappa, Vice President. The other legal luminaries who addressed the gathering were Hon’ble Shri. D. Manmohan, Vice President, ITAT, Dr. K Shivaram, President, ITAT Bar Association, Shri. Arvind H. Dalal, Past President, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, Shri. Pavan Kumar Ved, CIT-DR, Shri. S. E Dastur, Past President, ITAT Bar Association and Shri. Dinesh Vyas, Past President, ITAT Bar Association.

All dignitaries paid rich tribute to Shri. Easwar for his stellar contribution to the cause of justice.

A detailed note of the proceedings including the transcript of the speeches will be posted shortly.

We wish Shri. Easwar good luck in his new posting

Government of India
Office of the Director of Income-tax (Legal & Research)-I
3rd Floor, Drum Shape Building, I P Estate, New Delhi – 110002
Phone: 2337 8302 Fax: 2337 8826
No DIT(L&R)-I/NZ/SLP/393/2011/5091 Date: 16/09/11

To
All Chief Commissioners of Income-tax
All Directors General of Income-tax
Sir / Madam,

Sub: Summary dismissal of departmental appeal by Delhi High Court by retrospective application of monetary limits of tax effect -
(i) suggestion to file recall petition instead of review in High Court
(ii) filing of review / recall petition in cases where tax effect is below Rs 4 lacs – reg

Ref: Directorate of L&R letters dtd 02/09/11 for filing of review petition & dtd 01/09/11 for sending SLP proposal

Kindly refer to the above.

(more…)

Government of India
Office of the Director of Income-tax (Legal & Research)-I
3rd Floor, Drum Shape Building, I P Estate, New Delhi – 110002
Phone: 2337 8302 Fax: 2337 8826

No. DIT (L&R) –I/SLP/393/2011/4589 Date: 02/09/11

To
All Chief Commissioners of Income-tax
All Directors General of Income-tax
Sir / Madam,

Sub Observations of Hon’ble Apex Court- Summary dismissal of departmental appeal by Delhi High Court by retrospective application of monetary limits of tax effect revised by CBDT Inst No 3 of 2011 – filing of review petition in High Court – reg

Kindly refer to the above.

2. In a large number of cases Hon’ble Delhi High Court has summarily dismissed the appeals filed by the department prior to 09/02/11 on the ground that the tax effect involved was less than the revised monetary limits of tax effect involved prescribed by CBDT Instruction No 3/2011 dtd 09/02/11.

(more…)

The sitting list and assignment of Judicial Work on the Original side of the Bombay High Court on and from Monday, the 16th August 2011 until further orders will be as under:

Shri. M. P. Vashi, legal crusader, has filed a Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court being W. P. No. 632 of 2011 claiming that the provisions of the Advocates Act which permit advocates to be termed as “senior advocates” is unconstitutional on the ground that while its purpose was to encourage advocates with special knowledge & experience to use their skills for the common man, the designated counsel are using their position to defend anti-social elements who are able to afford their exorbitant fees.

The Petition points out there was earlier a norm that senior advocates would not charge more than Rs. 1,650 per matter. That norm has now been violated rues the Petition.

The Petition cites examples of several senior advocates who are charging “exorbitant fees”. Leading the list are Harish Salve & Mukul Rohatgi, who are neck-to-neck with an appearance fee of Rs. 3 lakhs and a full day of Rs. 25 lakhs. Abhishek Singhvi is not too far behind with an appearance fee of Rs. 2.5 lakhs. The others in the hot-list include Satish Maneshinde, the celebrity lawyer, who is stated to have an appearance fee of Rs. 10 lakhs.

The Petition claims that the only way in which the common man can avail of the services of the celebrity senior advocates is by forcing the latter to drastically cut their fees. The Petition suggests that a ceiling of Rs. 30,000 per day per appearance should be imposed on senior advocates.

The Petition is fixed for hearing in September 2011 and will undoubtedly be followed with bated breath by all senior advocates. Junior lawyers are also very apprehensive because a ceiling on the senior’s fees will result in a drastic cut in their fees as well.

A copy of the Writ Petition, uploaded by Bar & Bench, can be downloaded here.

Share your thoughts on whether you agree with Mr. M. P. Vashi’s views or not.

INSTRUCTION NO. 7 /2011 [F.NO. 279/MISC./M-42/2011-ITJ], DATED 24-5-2011

The Government has formulated the National Litigation Policy 2010, for conduct of litigation on its behalf. The policy declares:

"Government must cease to be a compulsive litigant. The philosophy that matters should be left to the courts for ultimate decision has to be discarded. The easy approach, ‘let the court decide’, must be eschewed and condemned."

2. In furtherance of the above stated policy and to achieve the ‘zero delay regime’ in matters of filing appeals and in suppression of the existing Instructions on the subject of filing of appeals to High Court, in general, and Instruction No. 1038 dated 3-2-1977; Instruction No. 1777 dated 4-11-1987; Instruction No. 1957 dated 22-12-1998; Letter Dy No. 111 /Ds (J)/2004-ITJ dated 25-3-2004; Letter No. 272/77/2007-ITJ dated 24-9-2008; Letter No. 279/Misc.l42/2008-ITJ(Pt) dated 23-10-2008; Letter No. 279/Misc/142/2008 dated 19-11-2008 and Letter No. 279/Misc/M-29/2010-ITJ dated 31-8-2010, in particular, the following Instructions are issued herewith for compliance by all concerned:

(more…)

Pursuant to a Writ Petition challenging the imposition of service tax on lawyers and the prayer seeking interim relief by way of “restraining the Respondents from giving effect to directly or indirectly or acting upon the impugned provisions or collecting any service tax on the assistance provided as an officer of the Court by an advocate“, the Andhra Pradesh High Court vide order dated 18.5.2011 has ordered “Since it is represented that the other High Courts have already granted stay in similar circumstances, there shall be interim stay, until further orders”