1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court dismisses petition challenging disallowance of appearance in estate duty case. Petitioner fails to meet qualifications under Section 83.</h1> The court dismissed the petition challenging the disallowance of the petitioner to appear in the estate duty case, concluding that the petitioner did not ... Authorised Representative, Estate Duty Issues:Qualification to appear in estate duty cases under Section 83 of the E.D. Act.Analysis:The petitioner, a B.Com. graduate, sought to appear in an estate duty case but was disallowed by the Asst. Controller of E.D. The Department contended that the petitioner did not qualify under Section 83 of the E.D. Act. Section 83 allows five categories of persons to appear, including legal practitioners and chartered accountants. The petitioner claimed to fall under the category of 'any other person having such qualification as may be prescribed.' The Rules referred to in Section 83 specify that an income-tax practitioner must meet certain qualifications to represent an assessee. The petitioner argued that his commerce degree made him an income-tax practitioner as defined in the Indian I.T. Act, 1922.The Rules further stipulated that an income-tax practitioner must not be disqualified to represent an assessee in any income-tax proceeding. The court emphasized that the qualifications listed in the Rules are cumulative and must all be met. The petitioner was found not to fulfill all the requirements to appear before the E.D. authorities. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the restrictive clause in the Rules should not apply to certain cases, emphasizing that the language of the statute was clear and unambiguous.The court dismissed the petition challenging the order disallowing the petitioner to appear in the estate duty case. It was concluded that the petitioner was not qualified under the relevant provisions, and the order passed by the Asst. Controller was deemed correct. Additionally, a request for a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused by the court, deeming it not suitable for grant of leave.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
