The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has rejected a plea by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) challenging the use of the term “Chartered” by the Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India (ICTPI). ICAI had expressed concern that ICTPI’s name and its course offerings might mislead the public into assuming a connection between the two bodies, potentially harming ICAI’s reputation.
ICAI, a statutory body that regulates the chartered accountancy profession in India since 1949, had argued that ICTPI’s program titled “Chartered Tax Practitioners” could cause public confusion. Citing Section 24A of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, the institute claimed the name’s use by ICTPI was inappropriate and risked misleading stakeholders.
MCA’s Response to the Objection
After hearing both parties, the Regional Director (RD) of the MCA dismissed ICAI’s application. The RD concluded that the term “Chartered” is generic and widely used across different sectors. The director noted that several entities in India use the word “Chartered” in their names without being statutory bodies or misleading the public.
The MCA further stated that ICAI and ICTPI serve different professional purposes. While ICAI focuses on auditing and accountancy, ICTPI targets taxation, a distinct field. Moreover, ICAI itself had earlier acknowledged that no formal qualification is required to practice as a tax consultant, weakening its argument further.
ICTPI’s Clarification and MCA’s Stand
In its defence, ICTPI clarified it had been operating independently since 2020 and had received appropriate name approvals and recognition from relevant government skill bodies. The institute also committed to including disclaimers in all communication and on its website to clarify it has no ties with ICAI.
Recognizing ICTPI’s registered trademark and absence of evidence pointing to public confusion or passing off, the MCA found no valid basis for the complaint. The ministry emphasized that using the word “Chartered” alone doesn’t imply a misleading representation unless there is proven intent to impersonate or mislead, which was not evident in this case.
With this, the MCA upheld ICTPI’s right to operate under its current name, marking a clear distinction between professional domains and reinforcing the legal threshold for name-related disputes in the professional education space.
