In a major decision in favor of The Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India (ICTPI), the Regional Director of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) rejects Institute of Chartered Accountants of India’s(ICAI’s) plea.
MCA Rejects ICAI’s Plea for Name Dispute
The MCA has dismissed an application filed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) against the Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India (ICTPI) over the alleged misuse of the term “Chartered” in its name. ICAI had argued that ICTPI’s use of “Chartered” in its name and its Chartered Tax Practitioners Course could trick people into thinking ICTPI was linked to or officially tied to ICAI. The MCA didn’t buy it and dismissed the case.
However, the MCA Regional Director ruled that the word “Chartered” is generic and frequently used in various contexts that are not backed by statute. The order clarified that ICAI’s claim — that the word resonates exclusively with its professional designation — is “not acceptable.”
ICAI, a statutory body established in 1949 under the Chartered Accountants Act, had raised concerns that ICTPI’s use of the word “Chartered” amounted to a violation of Section 24A of the Act and risked public confusion. ICAI also claimed that ICTPI’s course design and name constituted an act of passing off, harming the credibility and exclusivity of the Chartered Accountancy profession in India.
In its defense, ICTPI argued that it is a non-profit organization registered in 2020 and operates independently with a distinct identity. It stated that its name had received clearance from the Central Registration Centre and that its courses are recognized under government skill development schemes. Furthermore, ICTPI emphasized that “Chartered Tax Practitioner” is a separate and distinguishable title from “Chartered Accountant.”
The RD’s order observed that ICTPI has a registered trademark and had taken additional steps to address ICAI’s concerns. Affidavits were filed with the High Court of Karnataka, in which ICTPI committed to adding disclaimers across its website and course material, clarifying that it is not associated with ICAI and does not provide licenses for tax or customs practice.
ICAI had earlier approached the High Court of Karnataka, which issued an interim stay on certain operations of ICTPI but later directed both parties to appear before the MCA Regional Director. After examining the matter in detail, the RD concluded that the two bodies serve distinct professional domains — with ICAI members focusing on audit and accountancy, while ICTPI caters exclusively to taxation practices.
Crucially, the RD pointed out that individuals enrolling in ICTPI courses are already registered and well-educated tax practitioners, making it unlikely they would mistake ICTPI as a statutory body like ICAI.
The final ruling rejected ICAI’s application, emphasizing that the term “Chartered” is generic, used widely, and does not inherently imply a statutory affiliation.
