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
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

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

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      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