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
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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

      Comparison of section 515 "Appearance by authorised representative." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      17 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 515 Appearance by authorised representative

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 515 (Old Version) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 sets out who may appear as an authorised representative for an assessee before income-tax authorities and the Appellate Tribunal, lists categories of permissible representatives and exclusions, and prescribes disqualification grounds and appeal procedures. It matters because it governs representation rights in tax proceedings - affecting taxpayers, tax professionals, banks and institutions. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 515 is part of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, captioned "Appearance by authorised representative." The clause governs attendance before "any income-tax authority or the Appellate Tribunal for any proceeding under this Bill." The provision defines "authorised representative" and "accountant" for the section, specifies persons excluded from representing an assessee, prescribes consequences for certain misconduct or convictions, and provides procedural safeguards for orders of disqualification. Definitions: the text supplies an exhaustive (enumerated) list of persons who may be authorised representatives, sets out exclusions to the definition of "accountant," and defines "relative" for the purpose of the section. Any other contextual background (policy rationale, legislative history) is Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Coverage: Clause 515 permits an assessee "entitled or required to attend" before tax authorities or the Appellate Tribunal to attend through an authorised representative. Attendance in person remains mandatory where required for oath/affirmation u/s 246. Ingredients/elements: (1) entitlement/requirement to attend; (2) written authorisation by the assessee to the representative; (3) representative falling within enumerated categories; and (4) absence of disqualification under the listed grounds. The section extends to proceedings under the Bill before income-tax authorities and the Appellate Tribunal.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent and interpretive principles indicated by the text: the clause prescribes a controlled, enumerated list of permissible representatives, suggesting an intent to balance access to representation with safeguards against conflicts of interest and misconduct. The use of express exclusions (e.g., relatives, officers, persons with certain financial interests) indicates a policy aim to preserve impartiality. The provision anticipates delegated rulemaking by referencing "as prescribed" for educational qualifications and for persons who may have business relationships of a prescribed nature. No explicit legislative purpose statement or explanatory notes are included. Not stated in the document: legislative history, purpose beyond textual indications, or debates.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs: subsection (2) carves out cases where personal attendance is required for examination on oath or affirmation u/s 246. The definition of "accountant" contains multiple exceptions (who the accountant does not include for representation), including company-specific auditor-eligibility constraints and exclusions where the person is the assessee himself or related persons, officers/employees, partners, persons having securities/indebtedness/guarantees below specified monetary thresholds (one lakh rupees), persons with prescribed business relationships, and persons convicted of fraud within ten years. Disqualification grounds in sub-section (4) include dismissal from Government service, conviction or imposition of specified penalties, insolvency, and conviction for fraud - with temporal limits specified for some categories.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A taxpayer may authorise a chartered accountant with a valid certificate of practice to appear before an income-tax authority, provided the chartered accountant is not the assessee, not an officer or employee of the assessee, not a relative, and not otherwise disqualified under subsection (4). (This example is a direct application of the text.)
      • Example 2: An officer of a scheduled bank that maintains the assessee's current account may, if authorised in writing by the assessee, appear as authorised representative under clause 515(3)(a)(ii), unless disqualified under sub-section (4). (Drawn directly from the enumerated categories.)
      • Example 3: A person who holds a security in the assessee but whose relative's holding does not exceed one lakh rupees may still fall within permissible representation unless otherwise excluded by other sub-clauses. (Example reflects the monetary threshold in sub-clause (G)(I).)

      Interplay

      Interaction with other provisions: clause 515 refers to section 246 (examination on oath/affirmation) to exclude personal attendance cases. It cross-references provisions in the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 for the definition of "accountant" and to the Companies Act, 2013 for auditor eligibility. It also cites historical statutes (Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and Income-tax Act, 1961) for transitional categories. The clause contemplates appeals to "the Board" against disqualification orders and refers to section numbers in other Acts/sections for specified exceptions. No mention is made of rules, forms, or procedural modalities beyond the ability to appeal within one month; detail on the mechanism of written authorisation is Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Document 1 Section 515 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Document 2 Clause 515 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) and Practical Impact

      • Structure and wording of definitions: The enacted Section 515 (Doc 1) uses the phrase "For the purposes of this section,--" introducing sub-section (3) with enumerated definitions including (a) "authorised representative" and (b) "accountant"; the Bill version (Doc 2) uses "In this section,--" with largely similar enumerated items.
        • Practical impact: largely stylistic; no material difference unless specific wording differs (noted below).
      • Clause (3)(a)(viii)/(viii) - transitional/legacy category: Doc 1 sub-clause (viii) refers to "any other person who was an authorised representative in accordance with the provisions of section 288(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961);" Doc 2 sub-clause (viii) refers to "any other person who, immediately before the coming into force of the said Act, was an income-tax practitioner as per section 61(2)(iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), and was actually practising as such;".
        • Practical impact: Doc 1 ties the legacy category to the previous Income-tax Act, 1961, via a specific section; Doc 2 ties it to the 1922 Act's income-tax practitioner definition and an additional "actually practising" requirement. This change may broaden or shift the universe of legacy practitioners recognised; precise practical effect depends on which historical practitioners meet the cited prior-section criteria. The difference affects transitional eligibility of persons who represented taxpayers before earlier regimes.
      • Prescriptive language for educational qualification sub-clause: Doc 1 sub-clause (vi) states "any person, who has acquired such educational qualifications, as may be prescribed;" (words identical to Doc 2 which has "as prescribed" - Doc 2: "as prescribed;" Doc 1: "as may be prescribed;").
        • Practical impact: Doc 1's "may be prescribed" arguably emphasises delegated-rulemaking; Doc 2's shorter "as prescribed" is substantively the same in practice. No material operational difference apparent.
      • Definition of "accountant" exceptions - organisational terminology: Doc 1 in sub-clause (b)(ii)(B) uses "for an assessee, being a registered non-profit organisation, any person referred to in section 355(h)(i) or (ii) or (iii) or (iv);" whereas Doc 2 uses "for an assessee, being a trust or institution, any person referred to in section 355(h)(i) or (ii) or (iii) or (iv);". Practical impact: Doc 1 replaces "trust or institution" with "registered non-profit organisation". This narrows or clarifies the class by requiring registration as a non-profit organisation - effect is to limit who is excluded from being an accountant for representation in respect of such assessees.
        • Practical effect: companies or entities that are trusts/institutions but not registered non-profit organisations may be treated differently under the enacted text.
      • Cross-references to penalties/sections in disqualification (sub-section (4)(b)): Doc 1 excludes persons on whom a penalty has been imposed under this Act, except penalties u/s 271(1)(ii) or 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or section 465(1)(d) of this Act. Doc 2 instead excepts a penalty imposed u/s 275(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or section 465(1)(d).
        • Practical impact: the enacted provision substitutes different cross-references to prior Act penalty sections (271/272A referencing 1961 Act) compared to the Bill's 275 reference. This changes which historical penalty types are carved out from disqualification-affecting whether prior penal sanctions continue to block representation. Practically, the change alters eligibility where the prior penalty falls under different section numbers.
      • Sub-section (5)(b) phrasing on non-legal/accountant misconduct: Doc 1: sub-section (5)(b) states that a non-legal practitioner or non-accountant "who is found guilty of misconduct in any income-tax proceedings by the prescribed income-tax authority, he may be directed by such authority that he shall henceforth be disqualified..." Doc 2: similar but omits "prescribed" before "income-tax authority" and uses slightly different punctuation.
        • Practical impact: Doc 1's insertion of "prescribed" suggests a specified authority will be designated by rules; this could narrow or clarify which authority may issue such disqualification directions.
      • Definition of "relative": Doc 1 articulates the phrase "any lineal ascendant (maternal or paternal) or descendant" in (d) and (e); Doc 2 uses "any lineal ascendant or descendant" without parenthetical clarification.
        • Practical impact: Doc 1 clarifies maternal/paternal; substantive application unchanged but explicitness increased.

      Practical impact summary

      • Transitional categories and legacy practitioners: changes to the historic cross-references (1922 Act vs 1961 Act sections) alter precisely which pre-existing practitioners retain authorised-representative status; this can affect availability of representation for certain categories of taxpayers immediately after enactment.
      • Scope of excluded "accountant" relationships: replacing "trust or institution" with "registered non-profit organisation" narrows an exception and may restrict or clarify who cannot represent certain non-profit assessees.
      • Prescribed authority and rulemaking signals: insertion of "may be prescribed" and "prescribed income-tax authority" suggests delegated instruments will play a role in operationalising eligibility and disqualification, increasing the importance of subordinate legislation.
      • Cross-reference shifts to penalty sections change which historical sanctions impact representation rights; practitioners affected by prior penalties should check the specific cited sections to determine continuing eligibility.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: authorised representatives must ensure they are not within the exclusion categories (relatives, officers/employees, persons with disqualifying financial interests or convictions). Taxpayers must provide written authorisation. Persons with prior convictions, insolvency, or dismissal from government service should verify whether the temporal disqualification applies.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: the text requires written authorisation by the assessee; parties should retain copies of written authorisations and any documentary evidence of eligibility (e.g., certificate of practice for chartered accountants). Where appeals to the Board are available against disqualification orders, parties should retain notice and order documents to meet the one-month appeal window.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 515 permits representation by an explicitly enumerated set of persons for proceedings before income-tax authorities and the Appellate Tribunal, subject to specified exclusions and disqualification grounds.
      • Personal attendance remains mandatory where examination on oath/affirmation is required u/s 246.
      • The definition of "accountant" ties representation rights to chartered accountants holding valid certificates of practice, with multiple exclusions to prevent conflicts of interest.
      • Disqualifications include dismissal from Government service, certain convictions or penalties, insolvency, and fraud convictions with specified temporal consequences; procedural safeguards include opportunity to be heard and a one-month appeal to the Board.
      • Several aspects are to be prescribed, signalling a role for subordinate rules (e.g., educational qualifications, prescribed income-tax authority for disqualification of non-professionals).
      • Transitional references to prior statutes create categories for legacy practitioners; exact scope depends on interpretation of the cited prior provisions.
      • Specific operational details (effective date, form of written authorisation, particulars of prescriptions) are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 515 Appearance by authorised representative

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax