Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
    The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
    The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
    The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
    Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
    Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
    The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
    The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Analysis of Registered Valuer Representation in Income Tax Proceedings : Clause 513 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 287A of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      17 July, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 513 Appearance by registered valuer in certain matters.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 513 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, and Section 287A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, both address the procedural right of an assessee to be represented by a registered valuer before income-tax authorities or the Appellate Tribunal in matters concerning the valuation of assets. The ability to appear through a registered valuer is a significant procedural safeguard, particularly given the technical and specialized nature of valuation disputes within the income tax framework. The introduction of Clause 513 in the proposed Bill signals an effort to modernize, clarify, and potentially harmonize the procedural aspects of appearance by registered valuers with contemporary regulatory and professional standards. This commentary provides a comprehensive analysis of Clause 513, its objectives, operative features, and implications, followed by a detailed comparative analysis with Section 287A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The discussion is structured to address each provision's legislative intent, scope, practical ramifications, and interpretative nuances, culminating in a critical assessment of potential reforms and future directions.

      Objective and Purpose

      Legislative Intent and Policy Rationale:- The core objective behind permitting appearance by a registered valuer is to facilitate the fair and efficient resolution of valuation-related disputes, recognizing the highly technical nature of such matters. Taxpayers, who may lack expertise in asset valuation, are thus enabled to engage professionals with specialized knowledge, thereby ensuring that their interests are adequately represented and that the proceedings are informed by expert input. Both Clause 513 and Section 287A reflect a legislative policy of procedural fairness and access to technical representation, but Clause 513 in the new Bill also appears to be part of a broader effort to update and codify procedural rights in line with current regulatory and professional standards for valuers.

      Historical Background:- Section 287A was introduced by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972, effective from 1 January 1973, at a time when valuation disputes were becoming increasingly complex, particularly with the advent of wealth tax and the need for standardized valuation practices. The provision drew upon the concept of a "registered valuer" as defined under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, to ensure that only qualified professionals could represent assessees in valuation matters. Clause 513, as proposed in the Income Tax Bill, 2025, updates this framework, reflecting changes in the regulatory environment for valuers, including the establishment of new registration and oversight mechanisms.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 513 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Breakdown of Key Provisions

      1. Sub-Clause (1): Right to Representation by Registered Valuer
        Clause 513(1) provides that any assessee entitled or required to attend before an income-tax authority or the Appellate Tribunal in matters relating to the valuation of any asset may attend through a registered valuer.
        • Scope:The provision applies to all valuation matters, whether the attendance is required or merely permitted, and covers proceedings before both income-tax authorities and the Appellate Tribunal.
        • Nature of Representation:The use of the word "may attend through a registered valuer" provides the assessee with a discretionary right, not an obligation, to be represented by a registered valuer.
        • Technical Focus:The provision is specifically limited to "matters relating to the valuation of any asset," underscoring the technical nature of the representation permitted.
      2. Sub-Clause (2): Exception for Personal Examination
        Clause 513(2) carves out an exception, providing that the right to representation by a registered valuer does not apply where the assessee is required to attend personally for examination on oath or affirmation u/s 246.
        • Purpose of Exception: This exception preserves the authority's power to directly examine the assessee in certain circumstances, typically where personal knowledge or intent is at issue and cannot be substituted by professional representation.
        • Reference to Section 246: The cross-reference to section 246 (presumably the section in the new Bill governing examination on oath or affirmation) ensures consistency with other procedural safeguards and investigative powers.
      3. Sub-Clause (3): Definition of Registered Valuer
        Clause 513(3) defines "registered valuer" as a person registered u/s 514 of the Bill.
        • Regulatory Clarity:By providing an internal reference to section 514, the Bill seeks to establish a self-contained and updated regulatory framework for valuers, moving away from reliance on definitions in other statutes such as the Wealth-tax Act.
        • Professionalization: This signals a move towards a more robust, centralized, and possibly more stringent regime for the registration and oversight of valuers.

      Interpretative Considerations and Ambiguities

      • Scope of "Valuation of Any Asset": The phrase is broad and may encompass a wide range of assets (tangible and intangible). However, the provision does not specify whether it applies to both direct and indirect valuation issues, or to disputes over methodology versus quantum.
      • Nature of Proceedings Covered: The provision covers both "entitled or required" attendance, suggesting it applies to both voluntary and mandatory appearances, but does not clarify whether it extends to all stages of proceedings or only to hearings.
      • Exclusion for Personal Examination: The exception is clear, but the threshold for when an assessee is "required to attend personally" may be subject to administrative discretion, potentially leading to inconsistent application.
      • Definition of Registered Valuer: By tying the definition to section 514, the Bill centralizes regulatory authority but may also create transitional issues for valuers registered under previous regimes.

      Comparative Analysis with Section 287A of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      Textual Comparison

      AspectSection 287A of the Income-tax Act, 1961Clause 513 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025
      Right to RepresentationAssessee may attend by a registered valuer in valuation matters before income-tax authority or Appellate TribunalAssessee may attend through a registered valuer in matters relating to valuation of any asset before income-tax authority or Appellate Tribunal
      Exception for Personal AttendanceDoes not apply when required to attend personally u/s 131 for examination on oath or affirmationDoes not apply when required to attend personally u/s 246 for examination on oath or affirmation
      Definition of Registered ValuerAs per clause (oaa) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957As per section 514 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Key Differences and Their Implications

      1. Reference to the Definition of Registered Valuer
        • Section 287A relies on the definition in the Wealth-tax Act, which may be outdated or inconsistent with current professional standards.
        • Clause 513 creates a self-contained definition by referencing section 514 of the new Bill, likely reflecting updated registration, qualification, and regulatory requirements.
        • Implication: This shift modernizes the regulatory framework and may improve the quality and accountability of valuers appearing in tax proceedings.
      2. Reference to Examination on Oath or Affirmation
        • Section 287A refers to section 131 of the 1961 Act, which deals with the powers of authorities regarding discovery, production of evidence, and attendance for examination.
        • Clause 513 refers to section 246 of the new Bill, indicating a renumbering or restructuring of the procedural provisions.
        • Implication: The substance remains similar, but the cross-reference ensures that the procedural framework is internally consistent within the new Bill.
      3. Wording and Scope
        • Both provisions are similarly worded, but Clause 513 uses "may attend through a registered valuer," while Section 287A uses "may attend by a registered valuer." The difference is largely stylistic and does not appear to alter the substantive right.
        • Clause 513's language is slightly more modern and precise, aligning with contemporary drafting standards.
      4. Regulatory Modernization
        • The move from reliance on the Wealth-tax Act's definition to an internally defined regime for valuers is significant, as it allows the legislature to set qualifications, standards, and disciplinary mechanisms that are tailored to current needs.
        • This may also facilitate harmonization with the regulatory regime for valuers under other statutes, such as the Companies Act, 2013, which introduced a new regime for registered valuers.

      Potential Areas of Overlap and Conflict

      • During the transition from the 1961 Act to the 2025 Bill, there may be issues regarding the recognition of valuers registered under the old regime. The Bill should ideally provide transitional provisions to clarify the status of such valuers.
      • There may also be interpretative challenges in aligning the scope of "valuation matters" under the new Bill with established jurisprudence under the 1961 Act.

      Practical Implications for Stakeholders

      A. For Businesses and Individuals

      • The continued right to representation by a registered valuer is crucial, especially for corporates and high-net-worth individuals with complex assets.
      • The modernization of the regulatory regime for valuers may increase confidence in the integrity and quality of valuation evidence.
      • Assessees must ensure that their valuers are registered under the new regime to avoid procedural objections.

      B. For Registered Valuers

      • The new regime may require existing valuers to update their registration or meet new qualification/experience criteria.
      • There may be a need for continuing professional development to comply with updated standards.

      C. For Tax Authorities and the Tribunal

      • The updated framework may necessitate training or capacity building to assess and challenge technical valuation evidence effectively.
      • The authorities may also need to update their procedural manuals and forms to reflect the new regime.

      Conclusion

      Clause 513 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, represents a thoughtful continuation and modernization of the procedural right of assessees to be represented by registered valuers in valuation matters. By updating the definition and regulatory framework for valuers, the Bill seeks to enhance the quality, credibility, and integrity of valuation evidence in tax proceedings. The exceptions for personal examination preserve the authorities' investigative powers, striking an appropriate balance between procedural fairness and administrative efficacy. The comparative analysis with Section 287A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reveals that while the core right remains unchanged, the new Bill introduces important regulatory and drafting improvements. The shift to an internally defined regime for valuers is particularly significant, aligning the tax law with contemporary professional standards and regulatory practices. Stakeholders must, however, be alert to transitional issues and ensure compliance with the updated regime. As valuation disputes continue to be a critical aspect of tax litigation, the role of registered valuers-and the statutory framework governing their participation-will remain central to the fair and effective administration of tax law. Further reforms may be required to address emerging challenges, such as the valuation of intangible assets, digital assets, and cross-border interests, but Clause 513 provides a strong foundation for the future.


      Full Text:

      Clause 513 Appearance by registered valuer in certain matters.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax