The Regional Director of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) dismissed an application by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) objecting to the use of the term “Chartered” by the Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India (ICTPI).
ICAI had raised concerns over the potential for public confusion and alleged that the use of the term was misleading and violated its statutory standing, as per a report by Taxscan.
Argument
ICAI, a statutory body established in 1949 to regulate the chartered accountancy profession in India, argued that ICTPI’s name and its course offerings, particularly the “Chartered Tax Practitioner Course,” implied a false association with ICAI. It further alleged that the similarity infringed upon Section 24A of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, which restricts the use of deceptively similar names.
However, the Regional Director ruled that the word “Chartered” was generic and widely used in multiple contexts.
The MCA noted that the term does not inherently imply a qualification conferred by statutory authority, and many companies bearing “Chartered” in their names are not governed by any legal statute.
ICTPI, registered as a non-profit in 2020, defended its position by highlighting that it had received valid name clearance from the Central Registration Centre and had been functioning independently for over three years. The institute clarified that its courses are designed for individuals already working in the tax domain and that it caters exclusively to taxation, not auditing or accounting.
While ICAI stressed that the public might be misled into believing that ICTPI was affiliated with or endorsed by the chartered accountancy body, the regional director disagreed.
What did the MCA say?
The RD pointed out that ICTPI’s clientele primarily consists of educated tax professionals, making the likelihood of confusion minimal. It was also noted that ICTPI has secured a registered trademark for its name.
The order also acknowledged ICTPI’s efforts to avoid misrepresentation, including its commitment to displaying disclaimers on its website and course materials, clearly stating that it has no affiliation with ICAI and does not issue licenses for tax or customs practice.
Significantly, the Regional Director held that the operational domains of the two institutions are distinct — ICAI governs auditing and accounting practices, while ICTPI focuses solely on taxation.
The RD also observed that ICAI itself had acknowledged that becoming a tax practitioner does not require a specific professional qualification, undercutting its exclusivity claim, added Taxscan.
Before the MCA ruling, ICAI had approached the Karnataka High Court with a writ petition, which resulted in an interim stay on some of ICTPI’s operations. However, the court later directed the MCA to hear the matter, ultimately leading to this decision.
