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
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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