[aaykarbhavan] How To Improve Process For Selection & Appointment Of Judges To Courts And Tribunals: Suggestions By AIFTP To The Supreme Court

Dear Subscriber,

How To Improve Process For Selection & Appointment Of Judges To Courts And Tribunals: Suggestions By AIFTP To The Supreme Court

The AIFTP has always been at the forefront in matters relating to judicial reforms. Pursuant to the judgement of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. UOI striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act and upholding the Collegium system of appointment of judges and inviting suggestions from all stakeholders on the measures to be taken to improve the Collegium system, the AIFTP has filed an application in the Supreme Court requesting permission to be impleaded in the matter and to offer suggestions.

The suggestions offered by the AIFTP are far-reaching and if accepted by the Hon'ble Court, would have a positive impact on the functioning of the judiciary including the ITAT. One of the suggestions relates to the functioning of the ITAT. It is pointed out that presently there is no institutionalized mechanism for the elevation of ITAT Members to the High Court. It is suggested that a mechanism be set up which could provide reasonable assurance to the deserving Members of the Tribunal that their good work will be recognized and they can expect elevation to the High Court. It is also pointed out that as per the posting/ transfer procedure, a newly appointed ITAT Member is not posted in the State where he or she was practicing. Because of this, the collegium of the High Court concerned does not have adequate background information about the ITAT Member and finds it difficult to judge whether the person has the proper credentials and is worthy of being elevated. The AIFTP has suggested that this problem can be overcome by the Collegium of the High Court devising an appropriate internal mechanism for obtaining feedback about the proposed candidates from the professionals who regularly appear the before the Tribunal. The professionals are in the position to provide accurate and unbiased information and opinion about the credentials of the Member and whether he or she is fit for the higher post. It is pointed out that if this process is adopted, deserving candidates will be attracted to join the ITAT, CESTAT & other Tribunals and this will further the cause of "Sulabh Nyay Satvar Nyay".

There are several other suggestions of importance offered by the AIFTP.

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

ITO vs. Legal Heir of Shri Durgaprasad Agnihotri (ITAT Mumbai)

Correctness of law laid down by Bombay High Court in Ace Builder 281 ITR 210 that deduction u/s 54EC is available to to short-term capital gains computed u/s 50 doubted by Tribunal

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: "editor@itatonline.org" <itatonline.org@gmail.com>

---

receive alert on mobile, subscribe to SMS Channel named "aaykarbhavan"
[COST FREE]
SEND "on aaykarbhavan" TO 9870807070 FROM YOUR MOBILE.

To receive the mails from this group send message to aaykarbhavan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Visit Your Group

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

[aaykarbhavan] S. 54EC: ITAT Doubts Correctness Of High Court Verdict + CBDT Irked At Poor Show By Dept Before AAR + Imp Updates

Dear Subscriber,

Pr. CIT vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court)

S. 143(2)/ 292BB: Failure to issue a s. 143(2) notice renders the reassessment order void. S. 292BB saves a case of "non service" of the notice but not a case of "non issue"

The failure of the AO, in re-assessment proceedings, to issue notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, prior to finalising the re-assessment order, cannot be condoned by referring to Section 292BB of the Act. Section 292BB applies insofar as failure of "service" of notice is concerned and not with regard to failure to "issue" notice. The non-issue of the said notice is fatal to the order of re-assessment

ITO vs. Legal Heir of Shri Durgaprasad Agnihotri (ITAT Mumbai)

Correctness of law laid down by Bombay High Court in Ace Builder 281 ITR 210 that deduction u/s 54EC is available to to short-term capital gains computed u/s 50 doubted by Tribunal

By virtue of the deeming provision of section 50, cost of a long-term capital asset (LTCA), i.e., as per section 2(29A), where depreciable, forming part of a block assets on which depreciation stands claimed, the capital gain on its transfer would have to be computed in terms thereof, i.e. by treating the WDV of the relevant block of assets (or, as the case may be, the relevant asset) as its cost of acquisition. The second deeming per the provision of section 50 is qua the nature of such capital gains, i.e., as capital gains arising from the transfer of a STCA. Section 54EC is available on capital gain arising on the transfer of a LTCA, i.e., which is not a STCA by definition. The same shall, therefore, not apply to capital gains computed u/s.50

DCIT vs. Sunita Khemka (ITAT Kolkata)

The AO cannot treat a transaction as bogus only on the basis of suspicion or surmise. He has to bring material on record to support his finding that there has been collusion/connivance between the broker and the assessee for the introduction of its unaccounted money. A transaction of purchase and sale of shares, supported by Contract Notes and demat statements and Account Payee Cheques cannot be treated as bogus

Where the payments are made by Account Payee Cheques and the existence of the brokers is not disputed the assessee cannot be punished for the default of the brokers and share transactions cannot be held to be bogus. When purchase and sale of shares were supported by proper Contract Notes, deliveries of shares were received through demat accounts maintained with various agencies, the shares were purchased and sold through recognised broker and the sale considerations were received by Account Payee Cheques, the transactions cannot be treated as bogus. Assessment cannot be made on the basis of suspicion or surmise. The AO has not brought any material on record to support his finding that there has been collusion/connivance between the broker and the appellant for the introduction of its unaccounted money

CBDT Irked (Again) At Poor Show By Dept Before AAR & Issues Guidelines For Strict Compliance

On an earlier occasion, the CBDT had issued Instruction in F. No. 500/98/2015-FT&TR-V dated 14th August, 2015 in which it had lamented the fact of poor representation on behalf of the department in the cases before the Authority of Advance Rulings. It had issued instructions that only senior officials who are well prepared on facts and law should be deputed so as to effectively represent the Departmental view on complex issues. The CBDT has now issued another Instruction F.No.225/261/2015/ITA.II dated 28.10.2015 in which it has taken exception to the fact that:

(i) Departmental Representatives are seeking adjournment on unjustified grounds;

(ii) Departmental Representatives not committing to a particular position on the ground of seeking further instructions from the field authorities;

(iii) All the questions raised in an application not properly responded to, while furnishing the report.

In order to deal with the malaise, the CBDT has issued clear-cut directions and warned that the said directions should be followed strictly.

CBDT Directs That Taxpayers' Grievances Sent By Email Should Be Quickly Resolved

Aayakar Sampark Kendra (ASK) is one of the initiatives of the Income Tax Department to provide Taxpayer Information and Services to the taxpayers across the country. At present five call centers of Aayakar Sampark Kendra (One NCC at Gurgaon and four RCCs at Jammu, Jangipur, Kochi and Shillong) are functioning to answer queries related to the status of PAN & TAN applications, procedure of filing of Income tax & Wealth tax returns, downloading of calls and other general queries. Taxpayers have also been provided a facility to register grievances through email through the call centers of ASK

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

CIT vs. AMCO Power Systems Ltd (Karnataka High Court)

S. 79: As the purpose of the provision is to prevent misuse of losses by transferring ownership, it should be restricted to cases of transfer of 'beneficial shareholding'. A transfer of shares of the loss-making company by the shareholder-company to its subsidiary is not hit by s. 79

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: "editor@itatonline.org" <itatonline.org@gmail.com>

---

receive alert on mobile, subscribe to SMS Channel named "aaykarbhavan"
[COST FREE]
SEND "on aaykarbhavan" TO 9870807070 FROM YOUR MOBILE.

To receive the mails from this group send message to aaykarbhavan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Visit Your Group

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use