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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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