Topics

Zia Mody paid advance tax of Rs. 3 crores in the September 2012 quarter implying an income of Rs. 27 crores for FY 2013-14. Fali Nariman paid Rs. 1.80 crores, implying an income of Rs. 16 crores. Cyril Shroff paid Rs. 1 crore as advance tax implying an income of Rs. 9 crores.

Harish Salve's advance-tax payments are not available. If anyone has the info, please share it as a means of inspiration (and envy!).

I found this comic in a tragic way that even a high-profile case involving the Chief Justice of India is pending 37 years later. I think we should all hang our heads in shame for our pathetic justice delivery system.

Even a terrorist who killed hundreds of people in broad daylight is still enjoying his life and getting the best of medical treatment while law-fearing citizens get no medical care. Another convicted terrorist who has been sentenced to death is enjoying life because the President cannot find time to decide his mercy petition.

What is happening to us? Does nobody care at all? Even the SUPREME COURT is only using pathetic words that "it is distressed beyond words". What good is all that talk if there is no action????

"Before parting with the record of the case we are constrained to say
that we are distressed beyond words to find that the case relating to the
attempt on the life of the CJI remains stuck up at the stage of the appeal even
after about 37 years of the occurrence. We are informed that the other case
of the killing of Shri L.N. Mishra is still mired before the trial court. We do
not wish to make any comment on that case as that is the subject matter of
Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 200 and 203 of 2011 that remains pending
before this Court. But so far as the present case is concerned, we would
request the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court with all the strength at our
command to take notice of the inordinately long time for which these
appeals (Criminal Appeal Nos.436 & 443 of 1996) are pending before the
High Court and to put a tab on them so as to ensure that the appeals are
disposed of without any further delay and in any case not later than six
months from the date of the receipt/production of a copy of this order."

I cannot attach the judgement because it is too large. But details are IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 174 OF 2012
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO.6489 OF 2006]
SUDEVANAND ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE THROUGH CBI ... RESPONDENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15719 of 2011

VINAYAK CONSTRUCTION - Petitioner(s)

Versus


INCOME

TAX OFFICER WARD 9(1) OR HIS SUCCESSOR TO OFFICE & 1 - Respondent(s)


========================================================= Appearance: MR RK PATEL for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR MR BHATT, SR. ADV WITH MRS MAUNA M BHATT for Respondent(s) : 1 -

2.

=========================================================


CORAM HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI


and


HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI




Date

: 29/11/2011


ORAL

JUDGMENT


(Per

: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)



Rule.

Learned advocate Mrs.Bhatt waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents.




2. Petitioner-assessee has challenged notice of reopening of assessment dated 28.3.2011. The petitioner has also challenged order dated 5.10.211, by which the petitioner's objections to such reopening came to be disposed of by the Assessing Officer.




3. For

the assessment year 2004-05, the petitioner-firm filed its return of income along with necessary documents. The Assessing Officer framed scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act for short) on 20th February 2006 and granted deductions under section 80IB(10) of the Act as claimed by the petitioner.




4.

By Finance Act 2 of 2009, certain changes were made in section 80IB(10) of the Act with retrospective effect from 1.4.2011. On 28.3.2011, the Assessing Officer issued the impugned notice seeking to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 2004-05. In the notice, he stated that he had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax for the assessment year has escaped assessment. He, therefore, required the assessee to file return of income within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice.



5. At

the request of the petitioner, the Assessing Officer supplied the reasons he had recorded for reopening the assessment. Perusal of the reasons would suggest that the Assessing Officer noticed that the local authority which has approved the construction project and granted permission to commence construction had done so in the name of land owners. The assessee had only entered into a development agreement with land-owners. Assessing Officer, therefore, believed that the assessee worked only as a Works Contractor and had not undertaken the development of building and housing project. It was, therefore, not entitled to deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act by virtue of explanation added in th said section by Finance Act, 2009 with effect from 1.4.2001. He, therefore, recorded that there is reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment due to the fact that the assessee had made incorrect claim of deduction of Rs.35.31 lacs under section 80IB(10) of the Act.




6. The

petitioner raised objections against the reopening notice vide its communication dated 16.5.2011. Such objections were, however, turned down by the Assessing Officer by order dated 5.10.2011. The petitioner has, at that stage, approached this Court challenging the notice for reopening as well as the order rejecting the objections of the petitioner.



7. Counsel

for the petitioner submitted that the assessment which was previously framed after scrutiny is sought to be reopened beyond the period four years from the end of relevant assessment year. In the notice itself, it is suggested that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account of explanation inserted in the statute with retrospective effect. The reasons recorded do not suggest that the petitioner had not disclosed truly and fully material facts for assessment. Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that reopening beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year was wholly without jurisdiction.



8. Counsel

pointed out that in the case of this very assessee in the previous year, when the assessment was reopened, the petitioner had carried the issue in Departmental appeal and the Commissioner, Appeals had reversed the Assessing Officer's order and declared the reopening proceedings invalid. The Commissioner had relied on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Aayojan Developers v. ITO (2011) 335 ITR 234 (Guj).




9. We

have also heard learned Shri Bhatt for the Revenue who opposed the petition.




10. Having

thus heard the learned advocates for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we find that the entire issue is squarely covered by Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Aayojan Developers (supra). Admittedly, the petitioners return was assessed after scrutiny. The petitioner's claim for deductions under section 80IB(10) was granted on the basis of statutory provisions obtaining at the relevant time. The assessment so framed is sought to be reopened beyond four years on the basis of the statutory amendment brought into statute book with retrospective effect. There is no allegation in the reasons recorded that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the reason of the assessee failing to disclose truly and fully all material facts. Under similar circumstances, Division Bench of this Court in the case of Aayojan Developers (supra) has observed as under:



"Examining

the facts of the present case in the light of the above principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, a bare perusal of the reasons recorded indicates that there is not even a whisper as regards any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts, nor is it possible to infer any such failure from the reasons recorded. Merely because of the fact that the assessee had asserted that it is a developer in the returns filed by him, it cannot be said that there is any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts. At best, the petitioner has made a claim along with supporting documents, namely, development agreements for construction of housing projects, etc. and based upon the said documents, the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion and granted deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. As to whether in a given set of facts, the assessee is a developer or a works contractor is a matter of inference. Hence, the assertion that the petitioner is a developer, without anything more cannot be said to be an incorrect disclosure of facts, as is sought to be contended on behalf of the revenue. In the circumstances, in the absence of any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the assessment year under consideration, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is illegal and invalid. The proceedings under section 147 of the Act which have been initiated by issuance of the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, therefore, cannot be sustained."





We

may notice that a similar view was taken by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sadbhav Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT, 333 ITR 483.




In

the result, we have no hesitation in holding that the notice for reopening is invalid. The same is therefore, quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.




(Akil

Kureshi J.)




(Ms.Sonia

Gokani, J.)


(vjn)

[any or all of the elements of traditional court dress]

I read this in http://www.firmmagazine.com

The UK Supreme Court has announced that counsel appearing before it need not wear "any or all of the elements of traditional court dress," in a move they say would provide an appropriate environment for considered discussion of legal issues.

"The Justices of the Court do not wear legal dress themselves and have decided not to impose this obligation on advocates appearing before them," the court said in a statement.

"In future, provided that all the advocates in any particular case agree, they may communicate to the Registrar their wish to dispense with part or all of court dress. The Court will normally agree to such a request.

"It is anticipated that while some advocates will not wish to take advantage of this dispensation, others may prefer to reduce their legal dress to a simple gown, or to appear without legal dress at all."

The Lord President has confirmed this afternoon that there are "no proposals" to consider a similar proposal in Scotland.

Now my Q is: Like Slaves we have copied from the British. Now that the British have themselves abandoned these practices, how many decades before we (slaves) decided to change our habits?

[Justice PK Shamsuddin]

Here's news that will send all us genteel folk reeling with disgust. It appears ex-CJI Balakrishnan may be a fixer according to an ex-judge who is quoted by Firstpost.com.

This news really turns the stomach and such people should be put before firing squad and executed for betrayting trust of the hapless public.

http://www.firstpost.com/politics/was-ex-cji-balakrishnan-a-fixer-ex-judge-says-he-was-approached-25820.html?utm_source=MC_HOME

"Was former Chief Justice of India and current Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Konakuppakatil Gopinathan Balakrishnan, open to "fixing" cases for a consideration?

Two former judges, who knew him closely, suspect this may be the case and have called for a detailed probe into the affairs of the former CJI who has recently come under scrutiny for the wealth amassed by his close relatives, including his daughters and sons-in-law, when he was a judge in the Supreme Court from 2000-10.

One of his accusers is retired Kerala High Court Justice PK Shamsuddin (1986-93), and a Gandhian and humanitarian who served with the former CJI. Justice Shamsuddin says Balakrishnan must be probed for his dubious practices because he (Shamsuddin) was once approached by a Bangalore-based person to act as an intermediary to a fix case in the Supreme Court.

Justice PK Shamsuddin

"I was approached by a man in Bangalore. He requested me to facilitate an introduction to Justice Balakrishnan's son (KG Pradeep) or son-in-law (Puliyanaveettil Vasu Sreenijan) to fix a case in the Supreme Court. I refused and said that I don't involve myself in such things."

This shocking revelation by Justice Shamsuddin brings the spotlight back to the corruption allegations swirling around Balakrishnan.

"I am of the view that a detailed and comprehensive inquiry must be initiated against all the allegations against Justice Balakrishnan. I feel he should resign as the NHRC chief and establish that he is innocent. All judges have a moral obligation to ensure that relatives do not misuse their position and use their names in illegal and dubious matters," Shamsuddin told Firstpost.

Another former retired senior judge, Justice K Sukumaran (1981-91), who served in the Kerala and Maharashtra High Courts, confirms that judges are often approached "by vested interests and attempts made to influence them".

Sukumaran says that Balakrishnan allowed his late brother KG Bhaskaran to exploit his name and position for personal gain. "I believe Justice Balakrishnan should have been vigilant to ensure that his name or position was not misused by his relatives."

Sukumaran also feels that Balakrishnan was okay when he was a Kerala High Court judge, but things changed when he went to Delhi as a Supreme Court judge and, subsequently, when he became CJI.

The wealth amassed by the ex-CJI's kin has been probed by the Kerala police and a CNN-IBN report says that his family "amassed crores between 2004 and 2009," when he was CJI. Firstpost's own investigations show that the current value of properties purchased by his daughters and sons-in-law add up to over Rs 35 crore (See details).

Tracing the rise and rise of ex-CJI Balakrishnan from an "average lawyer" who appeared before his court to the highest judicial office in the land, Justice Sukumaran says it is an open secret that Balakrishnan's career was propelled by former Kerala Chief Minister (late) K Karunakaran. The latter skillfully used the Dalit card to elevate Balakrishnan to the Kerala High Court.

[Fali S Nariman]

Is it not incredible that after 25 years, leading Jurist and senior Supreme Court lawyer Fali S Nariman regrets being the lead lawyer for Union Carbide in the 1984 gas leak case and has said with hindsight, he would not have accepted the brief. "If I had to live my life all over again, as a lawyer, and the brief came to me and I had foreknowledge of everything that later came in, I would not have accepted the case," Nariman told Karan on Devil's Advocate.

He also says issue not be revived now. So all that the government can do is, from its own exchequer, pay more, but the attempt to re-prosecute, the attempt to open the settlement and get more compensation, as well as the attempt to extradite Warren Anderson, all three are unlikely to succeed.

The full article is here http://ibnlive.in.com/news/im-a-fallen-angel-in-bhopal-episode-nariman/125418-3.html?from=tn

[Calcutta high court advocates go on the rampage]

I have come to conclusion that CAs are defintely more genteel and gentlemanly than lawyers.

See the Press repoer in DNA on rampage caused by Lawyers in Hon'ble Calcutta High Court.

Calcutta high court advocates go on the rampage

A group of senior advocates of Calcutta high court (HC) on Friday vandalised the courtroom of the chief justice, Mohit Shah, in protest against the forceful eviction of advocates by the police from a courtroom late on Thursday night. The agitated lawyers broke window panes and furniture.

The dispute arose on Thursday following a decision of Shah to allot a particular courtroom to an assistant court officer. The advocates, under the umbrella of the Calcutta High Court Bar Association, were upset since they have been demanding additional rooms to use as offices.

The lawyers started picketing at a particular room in the court on Thursday. When they refused to vacate the room even late at night, the police forcefully evicted them. On Friday, angry lawyers began protesting, and a large crowd gathered. Soon a mob descended upon the chief justice's room and vandalised it. Regular court functioning was badly hampered through the day.

The lawyers have demanded an apology from Shah and his ouster as chief justice from the Calcutta HC.

Ironically, Shah was already on his way out on Friday, having left for the Bombay HC where he is scheduled to take over as chief justice. He will be replaced by Bombay HC justice JN Patel, well known for conducting the 1993 serial blasts trial.

In fact, Shah's transfer was announced way back in April. Now, however, there is a fear in legal circles that the agitating lawyers' in Kolkata might see his departure as their victory.

This latest agitation follows a series of other similar agitations by lawyers across the country, forcing a pained Supreme Court to comment: "The role of the bar all over the country needs a fresh look."

Even earlier, Hon'ble Lawyers had go on strike in Chennai and caused havoc.

[My Lord' and Your Lordship' were "relics of the colonial past]

At last some sense has prevailed!!

It is more than three years since the move to do away with a colonial practice in the judiciary was thought of, but the first step towards  its actual implementation has come from a Madras High Court judge.

Justice K Chandru has banned the use of the terms My lord' and Your lordship' by lawyers addressing his court.

Advocates whose cases were listed for hearing before Justice Chandru were in for a surprise on Thursday when they saw a notice board requesting them not to address the court using the traditional phrase My Lord'. Quoting a Bar Council of India resolution adopted in April 2006, the judge requested lawyers to adhere to Rule 49(1)(j) of the Advocates Act as framed by the Bar Council.

As per the rule, lawyers could address the court as Your Honour' and refer to it as Honorable Court'. If it is a subordinate court, lawyers could use terms such as Sir' or any equivalent phrase in the regional language concerned.

In April 2006, explaining the rationale behind the move, the Bar Council said words such as My Lord' and Your Lordship' were "relics of the colonial past." The resolution has since been circulated to all state councils and the Supreme Court for being adopted and followed. For over three years now, the resolution has largely remained on paper.

The My Lord' isssue is not new to this High Court. The late KV Sankaran, who was the president of the advocates' association several years ago, never addressed the court as My Lord'. Later, when some activists broached the topic, senior advocate and doyen of the Madras Bar, Govind Swaminathan is said to have quipped: "It is a good move. But I cannot stop calling my wife darling'. Let young members follow the practice."

While heading to court hall or meetings, a judge of the Madras High Court enjoys two unique things -- a dafedar bearing a silver mace and a loud hissing sound he he lets out in the corridors to forewarn people that the judge is coming. "This is a luxury not available to any judge of the Supreme Court or judges of the 20 other high courts in the country," said a senior jurist.

Every judge of this high court is given a mace-bearer, driver and a personal security officer. Together, there are about 180 people doing these jobs. Except when the judge travels home or to court, or when the judge heads to court halls or meetings, all these staffers while away their time doing virtually nothing. "If only they are redesignated as driver-cum-helper, or mace-bearer-cum-helper, they could be engaged in more productive office work when they are not attending on the judges," said a jurist.

Pointing to a severe staff crunch at class IV level, another registry official said if such an arrangement was made it would greatly reduce the burden on aged and women section officials who have to climb ladders or handle heavy bundles. "At present, they have nothing else to do, except, of course, hanging around court halls or meeting halls most of the time. The initiative, however, has to come from the top," he added.  

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/HC-judge-bars-My-Lord-from-his-court/articleshow/5132818.cms

'My Lord' junked for 'Your Honour'

Their Lordships will henceforth just be their Honours. 'My Lord' and 'Your Lordship', the two phrases used since the British Raj by  lawyers to address judges of the Supreme Court and high courts, have just been confined to history by the Bar Council of India.

In a recent resolution amending the rules, BCI replaced the two most important phrases with 'Your Honour' and 'Honourable Court' saying that words 'My Lord' and 'Your Lordship' are "relics of the colonial past" which need to be weeded out.

In the lower courts, lawyers can address the presiding officers as 'Sir' or the equivalent word in the respective regional languages.

"I welcome it," said Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharwal, who, while heading a bench had recently dismissed a petition filed by a lawyers' body seeking identical change in the address system.

The CJI had asked the lawyers to approach BCI and build a consensus among advocates for the new system of address, assuring them the court had no problem with it as long as it is dignified.

Will the lawyers, so used to uttering 'Milord' and 'Your Lordship' during their arguments, adopt the new system?

Solicitor General G E Vahanvati said the prevailing system was just fine, reflecting the dignity due to the court and judges.

Supreme Court Bar Association president P H Parekh said amendment of the rules by BCI does not make it mandatory for lawyers to follow the new system of address.
 
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/My-Lord-junked-for-Your-Honour/articleshow/1497046.cms

The great Karnataka High Court Judge DV Shylendra Kumar has upset the applecart and forced all judges to make a disclosure of their assets.

His disclosure is here: http://sites.google.com/site/justdvskumar/asset-particulars

I wonder it will be before other judicial officers and income-tax officials are also FORCED to disclose their assets.

In my view, all public functionaries should be forced to disclose their assets.

Do you agree.

Ashutosh.

[New Delhi: Country's largest state-owned bank State Bank of India (SBI), automobile giant Tata Motors and oil major Indian Oil Corporation, besides Sahara India and its promoter Subroto Roy figure in the list of top 100 tax defaulters in the country.Disclosing the list of defaulters in the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday, the Minister of State for Finance S S Palanimanickam said in a written reply that top 100 tax defaulters owe to the exchequer Rs 1.41 lakh crore - more than three times the amount the government spends on National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) scheme annually to provide employment to Below Poverty Line families.The Centre is taking various steps to recover the outstanding dues, the Minister said, adding that the government has requested the adjudicating authorities like ITAT and Settlement Commission "to dispose of high demand cases expeditiously."As per the list, disgraced stud farm owner Hassan Ali Khan tops the list of tax defaulters with an outstanding arrear of more than Rs 50,000 crore.The list of tax defaulters also includes stock broker late Harshad Mehta and his associates and other brokers like AD Narrotam and Hiten Dalal.While the SBI owes Rs 333.6 crore in taxes, Tata Motors and Indian Oil Corporation have to pay Rs 206.5 crore and Rs 210.3 crore to the treasury.As regards Sahara, many of its group companies figure in the list of defaulters, while its promoter Roy owes Rs 230 crore to the exchequer.Among leading public sector undertakings, BSNL has a tax demand of about Rs 2,417 crore, while NTPC faces a demand for Rs 622 crore. VSNL Ltd (now Tata Communications Ltd) has a tax demand of about Rs 505.5 crore.Among Sahara group companies, Sahara India and Sahara Airlines (now Jetlite) figure among tax defaulters apart from Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd.Besides, corporates which owe taxes to the government are Coca Cola India (Rs 600 crore), Baron International (Rs 589 crore), Oracle Corporation (Rs 558 crore), Rolex Holding Ltd (Rs 558 crore), Aaditya Luxury Hotels (564 crore) and Reliance Energy (Rs 176 crore).Nokia, Daewoo Motors, Bunge India Ltd, Tata Industries, Satyam Computers and IBM Pvt Ltd are other companies which have been named on the list.The Minister said that these tax demands also include those which are difficult to recover for various reasons like demands notified under Special Court, inadequate assets and companies under litigation.]

I read this piece on IBNLive.

New Delhi: Country's largest state-owned bank State Bank of India (SBI), automobile giant Tata Motors and oil major Indian Oil Corporation, besides Sahara India and its promoter Subroto Roy figure in the list of top 100 tax defaulters in the country.

Disclosing the list of defaulters in the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday, the Minister of State for Finance S S Palanimanickam said in a written reply that top 100 tax defaulters owe to the exchequer Rs 1.41 lakh crore - more than three times the amount the government spends on National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) scheme annually to provide employment to Below Poverty Line families.

The Centre is taking various steps to recover the outstanding dues, the Minister said, adding that the government has requested the adjudicating authorities like ITAT and Settlement Commission "to dispose of high demand cases expeditiously."

As per the list, disgraced stud farm owner Hassan Ali Khan tops the list of tax defaulters with an outstanding arrear of more than Rs 50,000 crore.

The list of tax defaulters also includes stock broker late Harshad Mehta and his associates and other brokers like AD Narrotam and Hiten Dalal.

While the SBI owes Rs 333.6 crore in taxes, Tata Motors and Indian Oil Corporation have to pay Rs 206.5 crore and Rs 210.3 crore to the treasury.

As regards Sahara, many of its group companies figure in the list of defaulters, while its promoter Roy owes Rs 230 crore to the exchequer.

Among leading public sector undertakings, BSNL has a tax demand of about Rs 2,417 crore, while NTPC faces a demand for Rs 622 crore. VSNL Ltd (now Tata Communications Ltd) has a tax demand of about Rs 505.5 crore.

Among Sahara group companies, Sahara India and Sahara Airlines (now Jetlite) figure among tax defaulters apart from Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd.

Besides, corporates which owe taxes to the government are Coca Cola India (Rs 600 crore), Baron International (Rs 589 crore), Oracle Corporation (Rs 558 crore), Rolex Holding Ltd (Rs 558 crore), Aaditya Luxury Hotels (564 crore) and Reliance Energy (Rs 176 crore).

Nokia, Daewoo Motors, Bunge India Ltd, Tata Industries, Satyam Computers and IBM Pvt Ltd are other companies which have been named on the list.

The Minister said that these tax demands also include those which are difficult to recover for various reasons like demands notified under Special Court, inadequate assets and companies under litigation.

However, among special measures being taken by the government to expedite recovery of default taxes includes monitoring of the recovery of amount in large cases by a Task Force. "Invariably arrear demand above Rs 25 crore is monitored by CBDT and between 10 crore and 25 crore by CCIT/DIT (Recovery)," the Minister said.

[Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963]

Friends, I draw your attention to the following amendment to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963.

    "13E. The President, the Senior Vice-President, the Vice-President and the Members of the Tribunal shall not practice before the Tribunal after retirement from the service of the Tribunal.

     

    13F. The President, the Senior Vice-President, the Vice-President and the Members of the Tribunal shall not undertake any arbitration work while functioning in these capacities in the Tribunal."

I have three questions:

(i) As the Amendment is in the Service Rules, are ITAT Members who have already retired bound by it? It is trite that an already-retired Member is not subject to the Service Rules. Agreed?

(ii) Who about ITAT Members who chose to resign? The bar applies only to "retirement". Surely there is a difference between the two.

(iii) I can't figure out the bar on arbitration whilst in service. Were they ever allowed to do such work?

Any thoughts on this issue?

Regards,

Ashutosh.

[Union Minister for Law and Justice M Veerappa Moily today said the government would soon make it mandatory for the members of the higher judiciary, including the Chief Justice of India, Judges of the Supreme Court and the state High Courts, to disclose their assets and liabilities."The draft is almost ready. I am trying to introduce it in the coming session of the Parliament," he told The Indian Express. He said he would try to bring the judiciary around to ensure that judicial reforms take place without any hitch."I will talk to them (judiciary) on the issue of accountability. While, like other sections of the society, the judiciary is also not beyond reforms, we need to take into account that Indian judiciary enjoys the highest credibility in the world," Moily said.On the issue of involvement of Parliamentarians in the proposed National Judicial Council, which will deal with charges of corruption and irregularities by sitting and retired judges, Moily said he would take a final view only after taking to the Chief Justice of India and others. Moily said his Ministry was also giving final touches to a Bill aimed at setting up a mechanism for inquiring into cases of corruption and irregularities by Judges.This, he said, was necessary as there is no provision short of impeachment presently to deal with this issue. "We will introduce, as part of 100 days' programme, a legislation relating to disclosure of assets and liabilities by the judges", he said.]

The new Law Minister, Veerappan Moily is sounding very impressive. In an interview to Indian Express, he said the following:

Union Minister for Law and Justice M Veerappa Moily today said the government would soon make it mandatory for the members of the higher judiciary, including the Chief Justice of India, Judges of the Supreme Court and the state High Courts, to disclose their assets and liabilities.

"The draft is almost ready. I am trying to introduce it in the coming session of the Parliament," he told The Indian Express. He said he would try to bring the judiciary around to ensure that judicial reforms take place without any hitch.

"I will talk to them (judiciary) on the issue of accountability. While, like other sections of the society, the judiciary is also not beyond reforms, we need to take into account that Indian judiciary enjoys the highest credibility in the world," Moily said.

On the issue of involvement of Parliamentarians in the proposed National Judicial Council, which will deal with charges of corruption and irregularities by sitting and retired judges, Moily said he would take a final view only after taking to the Chief Justice of India and others.

Moily said his Ministry was also giving final touches to a Bill aimed at setting up a mechanism for inquiring into cases of corruption and irregularities by Judges.

This, he said, was necessary as there is no provision short of impeachment presently to deal with this issue. "We will introduce, as part of 100 days' programme, a legislation relating to disclosure of assets and liabilities by the judges", he said.

I wonder if ITAT Members will also be subject to this rule?

Regards,

Ashutosh

[This is the state of our Country - we have to hang our heads in shame:]

This is the state of our Country - we have to hang our heads in shame:

New Delhi: More than 20 years after he was arrested for allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs 25, the Supreme Court has acquitted a clerk of the charge.

"As the evidence produced by the prosecution has neither quality nor credibility, it will be unsafe to rest conviction upon such evidence," a vacation bench comprising justices VS Sirpurkar and RM Lodha said while acquitting A Subair, an LDC at the sub-regional transport office in Kerala.

Subair was caught under the Prevention of Corruption Act by vigilance department officials on April 24, 1989 after he allegedly demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs 25 from complainant Manaf who had come to the office for official work.

A Thiruvananthapuram court convicted and sentenced him to six-months imprisonment and the Kerala High Court confirmed the conviction. But the trial lingered for over 15 years in the two courts before reaching the apex court after Subair challenged his conviction.

The apex court after perusal of the various evidence noted that there was nothing on record to prove the guilt of the accused.

Setting aside the order of conviction, the apex court said, "The evidence on record in this case is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of Subair."

In Max India, the Hon'ble SC has held that for considering the validity of an order passed u/s 263, the position prevailing "on the date of the order of the CIT has to be considered". Now how can this be? My point is that if the Q is whether the order of th AO is erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, the position prevailing "on the date of the order of the AO" has to be seen. If the AO did the correct thing as per the law prevailing when he signed the order can a subsequent position prevaling at the time the CIT considers the matter make the former order bad-in-law. Obviously not. The rest of the order of the SC fits in with this logic so I don't know if their reference to "on the date of the order of the CIT" can be regarded as being obiter dicta.

Ashutosh.

I think LPO (Legal Processing Office) may be the future of our profession. This article says it all: http://www.itatonline.org/news.php#mysore

Imagine being in Mysore (!) and doing work for clients in New York, Los Angeles and London and earning in Euros and Dollars!!!! ;D Simply fantastic, no? Wonder how long before the big six (four?) pile on the bandwagon. Ashutosh.

In Madras Bar Association's case*, the SC has held that there is a doubt whether wholesale transfer of powers can take place in favour of a tribunal. The matter has been referred to the Constitution Bench. The matter may take several years to be heard. Does this mean that the NTT is for all practical purposes dead? I am very happy about this.  ;D Ashutosh.


*http://www.itatonline.org/pdf/gandhi_madras_bar_asson_company_law_tribunal.pdf