Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › CIT vs. Jackson Engineers Ltd (Delhi High Court)

CIT vs. Jackson Engineers Ltd (Delhi High Court)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 30, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (jackson_engineers_non_payment_counsel_fees.pdf)


High Court fumes on non-payment of fee to Dept’s counsel & extracts promise that there would be no laxity in the assistance rendered to the court in future

The Department filed an appeal in the High Court. However, the matter was not properly represented by the department’s counsel and it transpired that the department’s Counsel had not been paid their fees by the department for a long time. The Court directed the CBDT to file a chart giving details of the total bills raised month-wise by each of the 10 standing counsels, the amounts for which these have been settled and the payments released against the bills. It directed that the reason for the difference between the bills raised and as paid should be communicated to the counsels and incorporated in the chart. However, there was continuous non-compliance by the CBDT, the Court directed the Member CBDT and the Chief Commissioner to appear in person and explain the position.

Mr.K.P.Chowdary, Member, CBDT (A&J) and Mr.Amitabh Misra, Chief Commissioner-III appeared before the court and promised that necessary action with regard to revamping the system and giving better assistance to the court had been taken. As regards the non-payment of fee to counsel, it was stated that the arrears towards the admitted fee would be cleared in the next two months and in cases where there was a dispute of parameters, it would be sorted out with the counsels themselves. The CBDT Member requested that a quietus may be given to the issue and assured the court that there would be no laxity in the assistance rendered to the court in future.

Related Posts:

  • PCIT vs. Electroplast Engineers (Bombay High Court) The property belongs to the partnership firm. It did not belong to the partners. The partners only had a share in the partnership asset. When the five partners came into the partnership and brought cash by way of capital contribution to the extent of their contribution, they were entitled to…
  • Baniara Engineers Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata) It is essential that for application of Sec. 50C that the transfer must be of a capital asset, being land or building or both. If the capital asset under transfer cannot be described as "land or building or both" then section 50C will cease to apply. Booking advance cannot be…
  • Bently Nevada LLC vs. ITO (Delhi High Court) The Court accordingly finds that in the present case the impugned withholding certificate which directs TDS to be deducted at 5% on the payments made by the Indian entities to the Petitioner is unsustainable in law, inasmuch as it is not based on valid reasons and is contrary to the…
  • CIT vs. JRD Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court) The legal position in respect of an accommodation entry provider seeking the benefit of ‘peak credit’ appears to have been totally overlooked by the ITAT in the present case. Indeed, if the Assessee as a self-confessed accommodation entry provider wanted to avail the benefit of the ‘peak credit’, he had…
  • PCIT vs. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) The transactions in question were clearly sham and make-believe with excellent paper work to camouflage their bogus nature. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal is clearly superficial and adopts a perfunctory approach and ignores evidence and material referred to in the assessment order. The reasoning given is contrary to…
  • Paradigm Geophysical Pty Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) If the nature of services rendered have a proximate nexus with the extraction of production of mineral oils, it would be outside the ambit of the definition of FTS. In the instant case, since the nature of services rendered by the Petitioner gets excluded from the definition of “FTS”, in…

Related Judgements

  1. DIT vs. Jacabs Civil Incorporated (Delhi High Court) 

    Non-residents are not liable to pay interest u/s 234B. S. 234D applies from AY 2004-05 and is not retrospectiveRead more ›
  2. In Re Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd (Gujarat High Court) 

    Considering all these aspects, it is foregone conclusion that the avoidance of tax is taking place only if the present scheme is sanctioned by the Court, otherwise not. The transferee is nothing but a paper company being only intermediate for transferring Passive Infrastructure assets from transferor companies to Indus…
  3. Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co vs. DIT (Delhi High Court) 

    No income accrues u/s 9(1)(i), 9(1)(vi) or 9(1)(vii) from use of satellite outside India to beam TV signals to India even if bulk of revenue arises due to viewers in IndiaRead more ›
  4. DIT vs. Maersk Co Ltd as agent of Mr. Henning Skov (Utt High Court – Full Bench) 

    U/s 208, an employee is not liable to pay advance tax on salary because u/s 192 there is an obligation on the employer to deduct tax at source. The employee cannot foresee that the tax deductible under a statutory duty imposed upon the employer would not be so deducted….
  5. CIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd (Delhi High Court) 

    The real intention of the parties in entering into the sale and lease agreement has to be gathered from the words in the agreement in a tangible and in an objective manner and not upon a hypothetical assessment of the supposed motive of the assessee to avoid tax.The lease…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*