9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is virtually conceded that there is no dispute with regard to the genesis of the case; particularly, as to the formation of the new State of Chhattisgarh, after having the same carved out from the erstwhile undivided State of Madhya Pradesh. It is also a fact conceded that there has to be only one Bar Council for the entire State as per the scheme of the Advocates Act and that the Bar Council of the undivided State was granted exemption in terms of Section 10(23A) of the Act of 1961. After formation of the new State of Chhattisgarh, pursuant to the Act of 2000, the erstwhile Bar Council came to be separated as two different Bar Councils. Needless to say that a formal application had to be submitted by the Chhattisgarh State Bar Council ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 that, as categorically mentioned in paragraph 11, the monitory limits mentioned therein shall not apply to writ matters and hence it is not relevant. We hold it accordingly. 4. Correctness and sustainability of the common verdict passed by the learned Single Judge, virtually allowing the writ petition filed by the State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh with regard to the course and proceedings pursued by the Income Tax Department in declining the exemption sought for in terms of Section 10(23A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'Act of 1961') and assessing the income in respect of the year 2004-05 fixing the liability to the tune of ₹ 11,43,561/- is put to challenge in this appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equired to be satisfied. Met with the situation, the Respondent/Bar Council took up the matter before the Appellate Authority in respect of the year 2004-05 where interference was declined, in turn leading to a further appeal before the Tribunal. After hearing, the matter was remanded by the Tribunal to the Assessing Officer observing that the Assessee/Bar Council had already moved this Court by filing Writ Petition (T) No. 6095 of 2007 which was pending and hence to pursue further steps in tune with the verdict to be passed by this Court in the writ petition. 6. It is relevant to note in this context, that the Respondent/Bar Council had in the meanwhile moved the Board (CBDT) by filing an application for exemption which was considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was accordingly held that the course pursued by the Respondent/Department was not correct or sustainable and a declaration was made to the effect that the State Bar Council was entitled to get exemption, which was to be have an effect from the previous years as well; thus, allowing the writ petition, which is now put to challenge in this appeal. 9. During the course of hearing, it is virtually conceded that there is no dispute with regard to the genesis of the case; particularly, as to the formation of the new State of Chhattisgarh, after having the same carved out from the erstwhile undivided State of Madhya Pradesh. It is also a fact conceded that there has to be only one Bar Council for the entire State as per the scheme of the Adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
