Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Bar Council of India has notified the extension of date for registration of All India Bar Examination — XVI
Notification states as follows:
“The date for registration for AIBE-16 is extended till 15th July 2021, the rescheduled date for the AIBE 16 will be intimated soon. ”
Madras High Court: The Division Bench of Sanjib Banerjee, CJ and SenthilKumar Ramamoorthy, J., addressed the concern with regard to the quality of education being compromised in law colleges due to the increasing number of law colleges being opened up.
Instant matter pertained to the mushrooming of law colleges in the State.
It was stated that the standard of education imparted at some of the existing law colleges and the infrastructure available needs to be looked into.
As per the State Bar Council, it has been taking vigilant and sufficient steps, but unless there was uniformity all over the country, whether under the aegis of the Bar Council of India or pursuant to Court Orders, the situation could not be appropriately addressed.
Bench stated that there was substance in what the Bar Council stated since regulation of law colleges in a continuous state allows easy access.
Since orders have been passed earlier pertaining to the present matter hence Bench stated that the only thing that can be said is for the Bar Council to be vigilant as far as this State was concerned, since it cannot go beyond the territorial limits.
Bench expressed that the matter needs to be looked into, in-depth, by the Bar Council and possible orders have to be sought at an all India Level to ensure that the quality is not compromised in course of more law colleges being born in the guise of opportunities being created.
However, High Court held that no mandamus could be issued. Further, since it may not be effective merely to regulate the opening of law colleges within the boundaries of this State as easy access to law colleges across the neighbouring States will always be open, no meaningful order is possible to be issued at this level.
Bench suggested that the petitioner can continue the crusade but he may carry the said request to a different level.[M.D. Ashok v. Tamil Nadu State Government, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 1289, decided on 23-03-2021]
Advocates before the Court:
For Petitioner: Mr M. Madhuprakash
For Respondents: Mr V. Jayaprakash Narayanan State Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2
: Mr. S. R. Raghunathan for respondent No.3
Days after the Chief Justice of India, Justice S.A. Bobde objected to a Law student (appearing party-in-person before the Supreme Court) using the expression “Your Honour” for addressing the Court, the Chairman of the Bar Council of India, Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, has issued the following clarification:
A matter which was listed before the Supreme Court of India, the Chief Justice of India has been stated to be taking objection to the term “Your Honor” being used by a Law Student who was appearing as a party in person as per practice of the Superior Courts of India.
Bar Council of India with regard to the above matter clarified that as far as back on 28-09-2019 on the request made by Office-Bearers of Bar Association of some High Courts with regard to the Advocates addressing the Court, it was resolved that as per mostly preferred and prevalent practice, lawyers of the country be requested to address the Judges of various High Courts and Supreme Court as “My Lord” or “Your Lordships” or “Hon’ble Court” while Lawyers of Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and other Forums may address the Court as “Your Honor” or “Sir” or the equivalent word in respective regional languages.
The said resolution was taken by the Council in order to maintain graciousness and to uphold the majesty (i.e. impressive beauty) of the Courts of the country.
Bar Council of India
[Press Release dt. 23-02-2021]
Bar Council of India has notified that AIBE XVI onwards — No books, notes or study material will be allowed in the examination hall. Candidates can only carry Bare Acts without notes.
The said notification can be accessed on the following website: https://allindiabarexamination.com
———————————————————————————————————–
-26th Dec 2020 – Online Registrations Begins.
-21st Feb, 2021 – Last date for Online Registrations
-06th March, 2021* – Release of Admit Card Online.
-21st March,2021* – All India Bar Examination-XVI in various cities across India.
All India Bar Examination
Competition Commission of India (CCI): The Coram comprising of Ashok Kumar Gupta (Chairperson) and Sangeeta Verma and Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi (Members), considered whether Bar Council of India is an ‘enterprise’ under Section 2(h) of the Competition Act.
Informant filed the present information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act by Bar Council of India (BCI/OP 1).
Informant worked as an executive engineer and planned to voluntarily retire to pursue legal education. He submitted that he appeared for LLB (3 years) entrance examination in the State of Andhra Pradesh and secured 1st rank in the examination.
Informant stated that BCI enjoys the dominant position in controlling legal education as well as legal practice in India.
Informant alleged that BCI has allegedly imposed maximum age restrictions upon the new entrants to enter into the legal education and thus, created indirect barriers to the new entrants in the profession of legal service.
The impugned Clause 28 has been incorporated by the BCI in contravention of Section 4 of the Act by ‘misusing its dominant position’. By having done so, the BCI has also allegedly indulged in colourable exercise of power.
With the above practice, the members of BCI conspired to reduce the competition to its electors and created indirect barriers in the profession of legal service.
Therefore, in view of the above, informant sought that the said clause be declared illegal and void ab initio and maximum penalty shall be imposed for violation of Section 4 of the Competition Act and in indulging in colourable exercise of power.
Bench on perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case stated that it is imperative to examine the status of BCI as an enterprise within the contours of the provisions of Section 2(h) of the Competition Act before proceeding further with regard to the allegation raised.
Whether the Bar Council of India is an ‘enterprise’ under Section 2(h) of the Competition Act?
Term ‘enterprise’ has been defined under Section 2(h) of the Competition Act, as a person or a department of the Government, engaged in any activity relating to the provision of any kind of services.
Commission on going through the objective and functions of the BCI, noted that BCI appears to carry out functions which are regulatory in nature in respect of the legal profession, hence cannot be said to be an ‘enterprise’ within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Competition Act, 2002.
In Case No. 39 of 2014, In Re: Dilip Modwil and Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), decided on 12-09-2014, Commission had observed that any entity can qualify within the definition of the term ‘enterprise’ if it is engaged in any activity which is relatable to the economic and commercial activities specified therein. It was further observed that regulatory functions discharged by a body are not per se amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission.
Therefore, in view of the above discussion, Coram opined that no prima facie case under the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act was found and no case for grant of relief as sought under Section 33 of the Act arose. [Thupili Raveendra Babu v. BCI, 2021 SCC OnLine CCI 1, decided on 20-01-2021]
Bar Council of India decided to hold the next All India Bar Exam on 21-03-2021.
AIBE-XV is to be held on the scheduled date i.e. 24-01-2021 and there will be no change of date of All India Bar Exam-XV anymore.
For AIBE-XVI, the Online registration will start from 26-12-2020 and the last date for registration will be 21-02-2021. The last date for payment of exam fee would be 23-02-2021 and 26-02-2021 will be the final date for completion of online forms. Admit Cards shall be released online 06-03-2021 and the exam will be held on 21-03-2021.
In this way, Bar Council of India is going to hold two All India Bar Exams within a period of two months (i.e. All India Bar Exam-XV on 24-01-2021 and All India Bar Exam– XVI on 21-03-2021).
Bar Council of India
[Press Release dt. 21-12-2020]
Bar Council of India releases new schedule for All India Bar Examination–XV [Check New Dates]
Madras High Court: The Division Bench of N. Kirubakaran and B. Pugalendhi, JJ., addressed a matter wherein it was stated that the law students in order to escape from the police have been using the Advocate Stickers on their vehicles.
Counsel, M. Subash Babu took note on behalf of the Chairman, Bar Council of India, New Delhi and Nirajan S. Kumar, Counsel took notice of the Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
Petitioner’s Counsel alleged that the students who have been studying in the Law Colleges are using Advocate stickers by sticking them in their vehicles in order to escape from the police.
Adding to the above, many instances have been reported in the newspapers, in which goondas have missed the Advocate stickers while carrying the contrabands as well as for criminal activities.
Bench directed respondents to answer the following:
Whether the Advocate sticker is legally authorized and whether it has got legal sanction and why not this Court bans the Advocate sticker as it is being used for criminal activities by sticking it in the vehicles in order to intimidate the Police and escape from the cluthes of law.
[V. Ramesh v. Vice-Chancellor, Dr Ambedkar Law University, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 5519, decided on 11-11-2020]
The General Council of the Bar Council of India at its meeting held on 7-11-2020 has again considered the requests received from various quarters including various Bar Associations and State Bar Councils to extend the last date for furnishing the information as per the format required by the e-Committee of the Supreme Court of India.
After consideration, the General Council of the Bar Council of India, has resolved to extend the last date for submission of the details of every practicing Advocate of the country sought as per the requirement of the e-Committee of the Supreme Court of India, till 31-12-2020.
Individual Advocates, who have not yet submitted their details are again requested to send their details through respective Bar Associations or through respective Bar Councils under whom they are enrolled. Even earlier too, the communication by the Bar Council of India has been addressed to Bar Associations and to Bar Councils only and Individual Advocates were specifically requested not to send any email with his/her detail to BCI by email. Individual Advocates should submit their details through Bar Associations or through Bar Councils as it will not be feasible to gather such required details of Advocates if they are sent individually, and sending it through Bar Associations and Bar Councils would be appropriate and feasible.
In fact, Individual Advocates who were sending details by email to BCI have been emailed as follows:
Kindly Note again as clearly stipulated in BCI Letter bearing 1653 dated 24-7-2020, no individual member of any Bar Association should send an email to this email id.
We are going to receive mails from many Bar Associations throughout the Country and Bar Associations are expected to send it over to us as per the attached Format.
Therefore, details as per the format attached should only be furnished by the concerned Bar Associations and not by Individual Advocates.
Kindly also find attached the afore referred letter sent by BCI to all Bar Associations through respective Bar Associations. If your Bar Association has yet not received the format and the above-referred letter of BCI, please provide a copy to them.
Kindly furnish us with the email id, phone nos., whatsapp nos. of either President or Secretary of such Bar, so that we can also send such information directly to them.
We repeat, individual emails are not to be sent on this email id with respect to information sought as per above referred BCI letter and chart.
The Bar Associations are required to be more active, as the details which have been sought, may not all be available with the State Bar Councils as the enrolment form which is generally filled up at the time of enrolment, does not have all the columns/details sought as per the prescribed format of the e-committee of the Supreme Court of India, and therefore the onus would be on Advocates and also on the Bar Associations as well as obviously on the State Bar Councils to ensure that details, as sought in prescribed format, is supplied.
It goes without saying that the Bar Council of India being the Statutory body to regulate legal profession and legal education has the right and discretion to reach out to any Bar Association, Bar Council and Individual Advocates too, and to issue general and specific directions and Bar Councils, Advocates, Bar Associations being an association of Advocates only are also bound to abide by such directions.
The Bar Council of India has been receiving queries from many quarters as to whether furnishing the required information as per the prescribed format is mandatorily required to be provided to the Bar Associations and/or the Bar Councils on letterheads of concerned Advocates or not and secondly, whether such information, which is being submitted has to bear the signatures of the Advocate/s furnishing such information or not as many Advocates were facing issues in this respect.
In response to the same, it is stated that it is not mandatory to furnish the information on letterheads and furthermore if the information is being sent by email to the concerned Bar Associations and/or to the Bar Councils, then it may not be possible to append the signatures on the prescribed format as that would entail taking a print out of the format, signing the same, scanning the same and thereafter uploading the same, which may not be feasible for many. Therefore, it is made clear herein that under such circumstances, it is not mandatory to append signatures while furnishing the information by email, if the same is not feasible.
It is reiterated here again that this scheme/proposal is for the benefit of all the Advocates. The Supreme Court has devised a method of communication with the Bar in 22 different regional languages of the country; the e-Committee has also been training the Lawyers for e-filings, virtual hearings etc. other necessary information/reports shall also be made available to Advocates.
It is also made clear that supplying details of advocates who are Members of respective Bar Associations/respective State Bar Councils will serve fruitful purpose to have the correct information about the enrolled Advocates all over India as per the format prescribed by e-Committee of the Supreme Court of India.
It is made clear that there shall be no further extensions granted and any Advocate or Bar Association who/which does not cooperate in this endeavour, shall be liable for suitable action.
All-State Bar Councils and All the Bar Associations are also required to ensure strict compliance of this letter.
This is for your kind information and necessary compliance.
Bar Council of India
Circular dt. 12-11-2020]
Gujarat High Court: A Division Bench of Vikram Nath, CJ and J.B. Padiwala, J., allowed a petition which was filed praying to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in order to quash and set aside Rule 1 and Rule 2 of the Bar Council of Gujarat (Enrollment) Rules to the extent that they prohibited the admission of a person who was otherwise qualified to be admitted as an advocate, but was either in full or part-time service or employment or was engaged in any trade, business or profession, as an advocate.
It is mandatory for an advocate to be enrolled as such before taking the All India Bar Examination.
As per the Bar Council of India Rules, no advocate enrolled under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 shall be entitled to practice under Chapter IV of the Advocates Act unless such Advocate successfully passes the All India Bar Examination conducted by the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of Gujarat has framed the Bar Council of Gujarat (Enrollment Rules) under Section 28(2) (d) read with Section 24(1) (e) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Enrollment Rules”). As is mentioned in Rule 1 of the Enrollment Rules, a person who is otherwise qualified to be admitted as an advocate but is either in full or part-time service or employment or is engaged in any trade, business or profession is not to be admitted as an advocate. Rule 2 of the Enrollment Rules requires every person applying to be admitted as an advocate, to make a declaration in his application that he is not in full or part time service or employment and that he is not engaged in any trade, business or profession contrary to the rules of State Bar Council and of the Bar Council of India made under the Act. The writ applicant duly filled in the application form and also paid fees of Rs 16,600 as required. The writ applicant also duly declared that she is in employment. * The Bar Council of Gujarat, however, did not accept the form of the writ applicant. The writ applicant was told that the application was not accepted as the writ applicant had declared that she was in employment and that a form of only that person who makes a declaration that she is not employed either in full or part time service or employment and is not engaged in any trade, business or profession can be accepted, the writ applicant further submitted that the aforesaid rule was manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Court keeping in view the interest of all passed the following interim order:
[Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar v. Union of India, R/Special Civil Application No. 15123 of 2019, decided on 06-10-2020]
*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant ahs put this story together
Bar Council of India
The General Council of the Bar Council of India, as a last and final opportunity, has resolved to extend the last date for submission of the details of every practicing Advocate of the country sought as per the requirement of the e-Committee of the Supreme Court of India till 15-11-2020.
Further, the Council made it clear that no further extensions shall be granted and any Advocate or Bar Association who/which does not cooperate in this endeavor shall be dealt with firmly.
The State Bar Councils are also required to ensure the strict compliance of the above-stated.
Bar Council of India
[Letter dt. 29-09-2020]
Madras High Court: N. Anand Venkatesh, J., urged the Bar Council of India to amend its Rule 5 in order to ensure that the candidates who complete their Higher Secondary and UG through the regular course alone are made eligible to participate for selection in the 5-year course or 3-year law course, as the case may be.
The instant petition sought a direction to respondents with regard to the admission of the petitioner in the 3-year LL.B degree course during the academic year 2019-2020.
The petitioner applied for the three years L.L.B. Degree Course under the MBC category and the petitioner on obtaining necessary cut off marks.
Petitioner at the time of counselling was informed that he was not eligible to be considered for selection on the ground that he did not satisfy requirements laid under Rule 5 of the Bar Council of India Rules. Hence the present petition was filed.
What does Rule 5 of the Bar Council of India talk about?
Rule 5 of the Bar Council of India Rules makes it very clear that an applicant must graduate through a regular programme conducted by a University for the purpose of being considered for admission in the 3 year Law Course.
However, the proviso, which should be considered as an exception to the main Rule, expands the eligibility. The proviso makes it clear that even the applicants who have obtained Higher Secondary or Under Graduation through Distance Education will also be eligible for admission for the 5-year course or the 3-year course, as the case may be.
Further, it has been added that a person who has not completed 10th cannot qualify for 10+2, a person who has not completed 10+2 cannot qualify for UG and a person who has not completed UG cannot qualify for PG. This is the literal meaning for the explanation appended to Rule 5 of Bar Council of India Rules
Court made the observation that as per the existing Rules, the petitioner is eligible for being considered as a candidate for the 3 year B.L Course subject to the condition that the petitioner again participates in the selection for the academic year 2020-2021 and obtains necessary cut off marks.
Bench while disposing of the petition also stated that,
Necessary changes in Rule 5 should be made to ensure that the candidates who complete their Higher Secondary and UG through the regular course alone are made eligible to participate for selection in the 5 year course or 3 year course, as the case may be.
In the absence of the same, persons who have not even gone to the regular school or college will get into a law college for the first time in their life and that may not be a healthy trend to maintain the quality of education in Law.
The Bar Council of India should seriously take this suggestion into consideration and make necessary changes to the Rule.
[M. Krishnakumar v. Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 2017, decided on 19-08-2020]
New Schedule for All India Bar Examination (AIBE) — XV is as follows:
| Activity | Important Dates |
| Online registration begins from
|
16th May, 2020*
|
| Bank payment through challan starts from
|
16th May, 2020*
|
| Online registration close
|
17th October, 2020*
|
| Last date for payment
|
20th October, 2020*
|
| Last date for completion of online form
|
24th October, 2020*
|
| Online release of admit cards
|
31st October, 2020*
|
| Date of Examination
|
8th November, 2020*
|
*Council reserves the right to extend the said examination date in case of unavoidable circumstances.
All India Bar Examination
[Notice dt. 27-08-2020]
Due to increased groupism in the Bar Councils, on many occasions Bar Council of India has been receiving complaints and a very anomalous situation arises some times.
Because of some impractical rule of some states, the situation in some of the State Bar Council leads to unwanted groupism, resulting in an unhealthy atmosphere and inefficient functioning of the State Bar Councils.
Only in the recent past, Bar Council of India has found that in Odisha, there was abstention from Court work by Advocates for about 2 months due to some petty issue. This was the result of group politics in the State Bar Council.
BCI has received several complaints with regard to the manhandling of Chairman of one State Bar Council and he was compelled to resign.
During the last elections of State Bar Councils and Bar Council of India, the reports of corrupt practices for removal of some honest members and office-bearers (who did not succumb to undue pressure of members of State Bar Councils or member of Bar Council of India), has also been noticed.
In some of the State Bar Councils, the Office-Bearers were changed frequently and they were compelled to resign without completing their tenure (as per the Rules of Bar Councils) only on account of unwarranted and malicious fear of “No-Confidence Motions”.
In view of the above, BCI deemed it proper to frame uniform mandatory Rules in this regard for the fair, smooth and fearless functioning of Bar Councils and Bar Council of India. These Rules are mandatory for Bar Council of India and all the State Bar Councils.
Bar Council of India is to provide for the elections of its members, as contained in Section-7 of the Advocates’ Act, 1961.
Therefore, BCI has the sole authority to frame rules for removal of its members by bringing “No-Confidence Motion” against its Members, if required under these rules.
In accordance with the resolution,
Read the detailed notification here: NOTIFICATION
Bar Council of India
[Notification dt. 14-08-2020]
Bar Council of India introduces Mediation with Conciliation as a compulsory subject to be taught with effect from the Academic Session 2020-2021 in 3 years and 5-year LL.B Degree.
BCI directs all the universities to incorporate the above-stated subject as a compulsory paper from the Academic Session 2020-2021.
In times of pandemic and Covid-19, when physical hearings in courts are suspended and norms of social distancing are required to be maintained, Mediation as a tool for conflict resolution has come to the fore. Litigants have been drawn towards Mediation and have begun to realize it’s immense benefits.
Mediation and Conciliation has been seen to lead to resolutions without undergoing arduous trials and moreover resolutions/solutions are arrived at, at a relatively lesser time.
Further BCI states that the teachers for such programs must be trained adequately. The qualification of teachers required to teach Mediation with Conciliation shall be decided by the Bar Council of India in consultation with any authority/institution as it may deem fit including U.G.C. For the moment, applications may be invited from the lawyers having at least 10 years of practice with theoretical knowledge and practical experience in these subjects, inclusive of trained Mediators/Conciliators, and from persons having 2-years LL.M Degrees in these subjects.
Training will also be introduced by the Bar Council of India, in the near future and subsequently, such certificate/ Diploma holders would be preferred for being appointed as Teachers for teaching the subject of Mediation and Conciliation.
Read the detailed Circular, here: Mediation_Mandatory_Bar_Council_Course
Bar Council of India
[Circular dt. 13-08-2020]
This is a comprehensive Guide for All India Bar Examination conducted by the Bar Council of India. This Guide has been prepared based on the examination patterns over a period of time.
The following are some of the unique features of this Guide:
Constitution of India
Penal Code
Criminal Procedure Code
Civil Procedure Code with Limitation Act
Evidence Act
Contract Act
Specific Relief Act
Transfer of Property Act
Negotiable Instruments Act
Family Law
Law of Tort (Including Motor Vehicles Act and Consumer Protection Law)
Public Interest Litigation
ADR including Arbitration
Administrative Law
Company Law
Environmental Law
Cyber Law
Intellectual Property Law
Labour Law
Professional Ethics (Including cases of Professional Misconduct under Bar Council of India Rules)
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Taxation Law
This Guide is indispensable for law graduates appearing for All India Bar Examination.
Bar Council of India (BCI) has decided to postpone the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) which was scheduled for 16-08-2020, in view of COVID-19 Pandemic.
It has also extended the last date for receipt of applications to 31-08-2020.
The new date for examination will be notified later.
[Story to be updated]
Justice Sanjay Kumar Gupta was born on 24-11-1961, did matriculation from Oriental Academy, Jammu in 1976, B.Sc with full medical subjects from G.G.M Science College, Jammu in 1982, and L.L.B. from University of Jammu.
Journey as an Advocate
Enrolled as an Advocate in Bar Council of Delhi in 1986, joined Jammu bar in the Chamber of S.S Lehar (Senior Advocate) and practised in all fields including Criminal, Civil, Revenue, MACT etc. in subordinate courts and before High Court.
Higher Judicial Service
He was selected as a direct recruit in Higher Judicial Service as District and Sessions Judge on 22-01-2004 and was posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge Doda, served as District and Sessions Judge in various Courts at Jammu, including 1st additional, 2nd additional, 3rd additional, Additional District and Sessions Judge and Principal District and Sessions Judge Jammu.
Furthermore, he also remained posted as 3rd and 4th additional District and sessions Judge Srinagar, Judicial member special tribunal, J&K at Jammu. One man-forest tribunal Jammu and Kashmir, Principal District and Sessions Judge Leh, Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rajouri.
Lastly, he was posted as Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jammu, from where elevated to permanent Judge of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir.
He took oath as a High Court Judge on 06-06-2017.
J&K HC | Bail denied; no relief granted under S. 426 of J&K CrPC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT): A Division Bench of R.K. Panda (Accountant Member) and Kuldip Singh (Judicial Member), while addressing a matter held,
“Bar Council of Delhi being engaged in safeguarding the rights, privileges and interest of the advocates, its dominating purpose is the advancement of general public utility within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act, as such, genuineness of its activities and object of charitable purpose is proved, thus entitled for registration under 12AA and consequent exemption under Section 80G.”
Bar Council of Delhi — Appellant sought to set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Exemption) passed on 27th September, 2019.
Application in Form No. 10A and 10G moved by the appellant seeking registration under Section 12 AA of the Income tax Act, 1961 were rejected by CIT (E) on the grounds inter alia that since the appellant failed to furnish balance sheet and income & expenditure account for the FY 2018-19 despite called for, the conditions laid down under Section 12 AA are not satisfied and that the name of the Bar Council of Delhi does not appear in approved association/institution notified by the Government thus not a charitable institution within meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act.
Appellant approached the tribunal by filing the present appeal.
Tribunal noted that, appellant has been established with object to control, supervise, regulate or encouragement of the profession of law for which there is a separate provision in the Act as contained under Section 10(23A) of the Act for exempting its income which shall not be included in its total income.
CIT (E) proceeded to reject the application under Section 12AA and consequent exemption under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act.
Question for determination in this case is:
Whether activities of the appellant – Bar Council/ professional body which is to control, supervise and regulate profession is not a charitable within the meaning of definition contained under Section 2(15) of the Act as has been held by the CIT(E)?
Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Bar Council of Maharashtra, 130 ITR 28, affirming the judgment of Bombay High Court in case of Bar Council of Maharashtra v. CIT , 126 ITR 27, held that primary and dominant purpose of an institution like the appellant is the advancement of the object of general public utility within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act and as such, the income from securities held by the appellant would be exempt from any tax liability under Section 11 of the Act.
Whether the CIT (E) is empowered to reject the registration and consequent exemption under Sections 12AA and 80G of the Act due to non-furnishing of financials of FY 2018-19?
When the object of the institution is proved to be charitable within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act, further scrutiny of the financials of the appellant are not required because it is otherwise within the purview of AO to examine at the time of assessment if the appellant is entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Act.
In the present matter, the tribunal is thus of the opinion that the CIT (E) has erred in declining the registration under Section 12 AA of the Act on the ground that financials of FY 2018-19 have not been furnished by the appellant.
Tribunal further observed that, merely on the basis of the fact that income of the appellant exempted under Section 10(23A) is not a bar to claim deduction in assessment under Section 11 of the Act, as such income is to be excluded under Section 11 of the Act.
Hence, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed directing CIT(E) to provide registration under Section 12 AA and consequent exemption under Section 80 G of the Act. [Bar Council of Delhi v. CIT (Exemption), 2020 SCC OnLine ITAT 340 , decided on 02-07-2020]
Bar Council of India notifies that all Centres of Legal Education shall follow the under mentioned guidelines:
Bar Council of India
[Press Release dt. 09-06-2020]
Five Judges of the Supreme Court of India have been affected by Swine Flu which is caused by H1N1 virus. In order to curb the situation in the apex court, the following preventive measures were immediately undertaken by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India:
An H1N1 sensitization workshop for lawyers and other staff members will also be conducted by Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India at Bar Council of India office tomorrow i.e. 26th February, 2020.
Although H1N1 is a seasonal infection which usually occurs every year with two peaks (One in January to March and other between July to September), everyone is requested to take the preventive measures such as cover your nose and mouth with a tissue/handkerchief while coughing or sneezing; wash your hands often with soap and water; avoid crowded places; avoid touching your eyes, nose or mouth; stay away from crowded places if you have cough/cold; drink plenty of water; sleep well. In case of any symptoms, the nearest public health facility may be contacted immediately.
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
[Press Release dt. 25-02-2020]
