38.6c New Delhi, India, Monday, January 12, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Legal Insiders

The DHCBA Approaches Delhi HC Against Classification of Law Offices as Commercial Activity for Tax Purposes [READ PETITION]

By Meghna Mishra      01 October, 2020 08:49 PM      0 Comments
The DHCBA Approaches Delhi HC Against Classification of Law Offices as Commercial Activity for Tax Purposes [READ PETITION]

In furtherance of the suit, DHCBA vs SDMC &Ors, the Delhi High Court Bar association approached the Delhi High Court. The petition filed by the Bar Association through Advocate Nikhil Mehta was against the classification of law offices as "commercial activity" for the purposes of calculation of property tax under the Delhi Municipal Act.

The DHCBA asserted that offices of advocates must be treated under the category, or residential purpose and public purpose. Furthermore, it has also been submitted that classifying these law offices as a commercial establishment violates the fundamental rights enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The petition read, Lawyers appear before the Hon'ble court to represent their clients but in effect assist the Hon'ble court to dispense justice, and this cannot be a business or any commercial activity. Professional activities of lawyers are done purely on the strength of their knowledge and skills even those who have separate offices have to carry briefs home for reading and necessary preparations for the next day's hearing... their residences are an inevitable part of their offices, always. 

The petition also submitted that if the law offices were treated as commercial units, the Assessing Authorities would also ignore the Supreme Courts rule of the profession of advocates not being a commercial enterprise, industrial, mercantile, shop or business venture

Honble Justice Najmi Waziri presided over the petition. Since the nature of the petition is similar to a PIL, the matter will be directed to an appropriate Bench having jurisdiction of September 30, 2020.

 

[READ PETITION]



Share this article:



Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS


TOP STORIES

wrong-bail-orders-alone-without-evidence-of-corruption-cannot-justify-removal-of-judicial-officer-sc
Trending Judiciary
Wrong Bail Orders Alone, Without Evidence of Corruption, Cannot Justify Removal of Judicial Officer: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules that wrong bail orders alone cannot justify removal of a judicial officer without proof of corruption, misconduct, or extraneous considerations.

06 January, 2026 07:43 PM
divorced-muslim-woman-can-seek-maintenance-under-crpc-even-after-receiving-amount-under-muslim-women-protection-act-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Divorced Muslim Woman Can Seek Maintenance Under CrPC Even After Receiving Amount Under Muslim Women Protection Act: Kerala HC [Read Order]

Kerala High Court holds that a divorced Muslim woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even after receiving amounts under the 1986 Act.

06 January, 2026 08:19 PM
delhi-hc-full-bench-settles-bsf-seniority-dispute-rule-of-continuous-regular-appointment-prevails
Trending Judiciary
Delhi HC Full Bench Settles BSF Seniority Dispute; Rule of ‘Continuous Regular Appointment’ Prevails [Read Judgment]

Delhi High Court Full Bench rules BSF seniority is based on date of continuous regular appointment, rejecting claims for antedated seniority due to delayed joining.

06 January, 2026 08:45 PM
borrowers-cannot-invoke-writ-jurisdiction-to-compel-banks-to-extend-one-time-settlement-benefits-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Borrowers Cannot Invoke Writ Jurisdiction to Compel Banks to Extend One-Time Settlement Benefits: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala High Court holds borrowers cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to compel banks to grant One-Time Settlement benefits, as OTS is not a legal right.

07 January, 2026 09:22 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email