Category: Supreme Court/High Court related

The Constitution of the Bombay High Court’s Tax Bench w.e.f 16.08.2016 has been announced

In an emotional tone and with tears welling in his eyes, the learned Chief Justice askedIf you have 170 names sent to you (for appointment of HC judges) for two months, I don’t understand why they are held up, where are those proposals stuck, we should know.” “The vacancies in the high courts have since increased to 470” he added. Chief Justice Thakur also countered the contention of the Law Minister that it takes time to get reports. “Why should the Intelligence Bureau take months to send its report (on judges’ appointment)? Why can’t the Prime Minister’s Office ask the IB to send its report within 15 days? Why should the IB sit over these reports?” he demanded to know.

The Gujarat High Court has vide order dated 30.03.2016 in Percy Cawas Kavina vs. UOI Special Civil Application No. 4926 of 2016 directed an ad-interim stay of Notification No. 18/2016-ST and Notification No. 9/2016 – ST with respect to the levy of service-tax on senior advocates

The Ministry of Law and Justice has released data of the latest pendency of cases in the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The data shows that nearly 48,418 civil cases are pending in the Supreme Court of which 1,132 cases are pending for more than 10 years. In the High Courts, 31,16,492 civil cases are pending of which more than 5,89,631 cases are pending for more than 10 years. A large number of criminal cases are also pending in all Courts. The number of criminal cases pending in the High Courts for more than 10 years is 187,999. It is stated that the Chief Justices’ Conference has resolved that each High Court shall establish an Arrears Committee to clear the backlog of cases pending for more than five years

The Ministry of Law & Justice has released data which shows that there are 6 vacancies in the Supreme Court and 464 vacancies in the High Courts. The vacancies of Judicial Officers in District and Subordinate Courts is about 4998. It is stated that in All India Judges’ Association Case, the Supreme Court had directed, on a comparative assessment of the position in other countries, that there should be 50 judges for a million population in the country. However, presently, the Judge (based on sanctioned strength) : population ratio in the country works out to be 17.72 Judges/Judicial Officers per million population. The steps being taken by the Government to fill the vacancies is also briefly outlined

Change In Constitution Of Bombay High Court’s Tax Bench w.e.f. 07.03.2016

Hon’ble Shri Justice Dhirendra Hiralal Waghela was sworn in to the office of Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court on 15th February 2016. The learned judge was earlier the Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court and before that he was the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court. According to biographical information contained in the website of the Orissa High Court, Chief Justice Wahgela was a “precocious child”. His teachers encouraged him twice to jump two standards in one academic year and that is how he cleared his eleventh standard matriculation at the age of 14 years. The learned Judge completed his LLB even before he completed the age of 21 years with the result that he had to wait a few months to be enrolled with the Bar

Eminent jurists Dinesh Vyas and Arvind Datar have analyzed the recent decision of the CBDT to withdraw frivolous appeals filed by the department before the judicial authorities and explained its implications

Change In Constitution Of Bombay High Court’s Tax Bench w.e.f. 04.01.2016

The CBDT has issued Circular No. 25/2015 dated 31.12.2015 pointing out that pursuant to the judgement of the Delhi High Court in Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd 327 ITR 543 (Delhi) and the substitution of Explanation 4 of section 271 of the Act with prospective effect, it is now a settled position that prior to 1/4/2016, where the income tax payable on the total income as computed under the normal provisions of the Act is less than the tax payable on the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act, then penalty under 271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted with reference to additions /disallowances made under normal provisions. The CBDT has clarified that in cases prior to 1.4.2016, if any adjustment is made in the income computed for the purpose of MAT, then the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, will depend on the nature of adjustment. The above settled position is to be followed in respect of section 115JC of the Act also. The CBDT has accordingly directed that no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground and appeals already filed, if any, on this issue before various Courts/Tribunals may be withdrawn/not pressed upon