TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court directs replacement of vakalatnama to avoid Appeal dismissal</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income-tax -I Versus Bharati Vidyapeeth</h3> The High Court of Bombay ordered the revenue department to replace the vakalatnama of a Senior Advocate with that of an Advocate on record within two ... Requirement of replacement of vakalatnama – Counsel designated as senior advocate - Held that:- Even if the department expects Mr. Gupta to argue the cases as a Senior Advocate and on the part of the revenue the least that is expected is that he is instructed by an Advocate on record - The main proceedings are handled by an Advocate duly engaged to act, appear and plead for the revenue - That has not been done in most of the Appeals which have been filed with vakalatnama of Mr.Gupta – the revenue is directed to take care and not to cause embarrassment to Mr. Gupta. The High Court of Bombay directed the revenue department to replace the vakalatnama of Mr. Vimal Gupta, who was designated as a Senior Advocate, with that of an Advocate on record within two weeks. Failure to do so would result in the dismissal of the Appeals for want of prosecution. The court emphasized the importance of following traditions and customs in legal proceedings.
TaxTMI 
