Lawyers vs CAs - An Avoidable Battle, For THE "Common Good"

  Latest (for now)>

 

July 31

Itatonline

Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

The issue before the Tribunal was regarding disallowance made on account of claim for deduction under Section 10A of the Act. This very issue was covered in favour of the Petitioner by the decision of the Tribunal for A.Y. 2005-2006 in the Petitioner’s own case. The departmental representative before the Tribunal also accepted the position. Inspite of the agreed position between the parties, the Tribunal by the impugned order yet remands this very issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination/determination. This is without in any manner even attempting to indicate why and how its earlier decision will not apply to the facts for the subsequent Assessment year. The Tribunal should not completely disregard its earlier order without some reason. This is the minimum expected of any quasi judicial / judicial authority. If the Tribunal has failed to perform it’s basic judicial functions in such arbitrary manner, the approach of the Tribunal must be corrected, so as to ensure that such lapses do not occur again.

Note: Similar strictures against the ITAT have been passed in DIT v. Societe Generale, Madhukar Thakroor v. ITAT, R. W. Promotions v. ITAT, CIT vs. Gauthamchand Bhandari 347 ITR 491, 499 (Kar) and CIT Vs. Ram Singh (Rajasthan High Court). See also post where suggestions have been given on how to rectify the sorry state of affairs

Latest:

CIT vs. Dalmia Dyechem Industries (Bombay High Court)

Sec 271 (1)(c)- favourable

 

 

 

 

TG

 Remarkable decision over tenders by ICAI but Clarification sought

 

 PREV.

 The State Bar Council and Advocates – A Reality

  ...

The Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the case of Bar Council of India v A.K.Balaji & Ors. SLP No. 17150-171541/2012 has held:

“It is also clarified that the expression to practice the profession of law under section 29 0f the Advocates Act, 1961 covers the persons practising litigious matters as well as non-litigious matters other than contemplated in para 63(ii) of the impugned order and, therefore, to practice in non litigious matters in India the foreign law firms S.L.P. ( Civil ) No(s).17150-17154/2012 whatever name called or described, shall be bound to follow the provisions contained in the Advocates Act, 1961.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Madras Bar Association v Union of India, [Transferred Case (C) No. 150 / 2006, decided on 25.09.2014] has held:

“Chartered Accountants and Company Secretaries would at best be specialists in understanding and explaining issues pertaining to accounts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court struck down the provision allowing Company Secretaries and Chartered Accountants to appear on behalf of a party before National Tax Tribunal. “

- See more at: http://taxguru.in/corporate-law/state-bar-council-advocates-reality.html#sthash.G7jqk1gb.dpuf

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Bar Association v. Union of India [Transferred Case (C) No. 150 / 2006, decided on 25.09.2014] held:

“Keeping in mind the fact, that in terms of Section 15 of the NTT Act, the NTT would hear appeals from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) only on substantial questions of law, it is difficult for us to appreciate the propriety of representation, on behalf of a party to an appeal, through either Chartered Accountants or Company Secretaries, before the NTT. The determination at the hands of the NTT is shorn of factual disputes. It has to decide only substantial questions of law. In our understanding, Chartered Accountants and Company Secretaries would at best be specialists in understanding and explaining issues pertaining to accounts. These issues would, fall purely within the realm of facts. We find it difficult to accept the prayer made by the Company Secretaries to allow them, to represent a party to an appeal before the NTT. Even insofar as the Chartered Accountants are concerned, we are constrained to hold that allowing them to appear on behalf of a party before the NTT, would be unacceptable in law.”

 .....

 

 

LINKEDIN

I Felt like a Wallflower at Lawyer Networking Events Until I Started Doing This | Law Firm Suites

bit.ly•5 easy to implement tips to crush it at lawyer networking events from body language expert Vanessa Van Edwards.

• Comment(1)

A Bizarre, the Most Unsavory Development  of all, of its kind, in recent times, THIS :

Top CA Firms, E&Y, Deloitte, KPMG & PWC, Hauled Up For ...

www.itatonline.org › Home › All Information

Random Reaction (to share own thoughts, but mostly aimed at provoking the rest all around to give in-depth thoughts, as warranted): 

THE Complaint , in one’s independent but unbiased and impartial view, is, to react honestly, really not against just the named Big four, but against the whole CA fraternity; if looked through insightfully, call for much deeper reactions, not just from CA – but from both the fraternities mutually lined against, with the aim of common good.

If incisively considered and judged, in the ultimate analysis, it has every potential, not-so-obvious though, to impact, impair and imperil greatly the very ‘legal regime’; and, in turn, making  ‘public interest’ the casualty- intended  or conscious of , OR NOT.  

To Admn.:

The term “Hauled Up”  is contextually the most inappropriate usage and seemingly makes no sense, except to make the development a sensational one; for an appreciation in, in proper light,  suggest to look up any standard dictionary (English to English).

  <<<<<

 

 

Some Legal Aid Lawyers failing to serve the public | Canada ...

www.canadacourtwatch.com/.../some-legal-aid-lawyers-failing-serve-pub...

Questions & Answers for school officials regarding CAS at children's schools ... Canada Court Watch receives complaints every week about shoddy work by many of ... So the pot finally boiled over and one of our legal aid lawyers got caught ...