Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
SC reviewed the guidelines for Senior Advocate designation under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court found the existing point-based assessment system ineffective and subjective. Key conclusions mandate High Courts to frame new Rules within 4 months, emphasizing: Full Court decision-making, democratic voting if consensus fails, maintaining 10-year practice minimum, allowing self-application and ex-officio designation, prohibiting individual judicial recommendations, and conducting annual designation exercises. Existing processes initiated under previous guidelines remain valid, but new applications are suspended until proper Rules are established. The Court emphasized continuous system improvement and transparency in the designation process.
SC reviewed the guidelines for Senior Advocate designation under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court found the existing point-based assessment system ineffective and subjective. Key conclusions mandate High Courts to frame new Rules within 4 months, emphasizing: Full Court decision-making, democratic voting if consensus fails, maintaining 10-year practice minimum, allowing self-application and ex-officio designation, prohibiting individual judicial recommendations, and conducting annual designation exercises. Existing processes initiated under previous guidelines remain valid, but new applications are suspended until proper Rules are established. The Court emphasized continuous system improvement and transparency in the designation process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
