Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax