TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant had sought exemption in Paper 18 for the June 2014 CMA examination and, if so, whether he was entitled to be treated as exempt notwithstanding the amended three-term limit.
Analysis: The appeal was confined to the limited question of exemption for Paper 18. The record showed that the alleged online application did not support the appellant's case, as the form was an online form and the handwritten insertion of the paper number was not reliable proof of a valid exemption request. The writ petition contained no contemporaneous pleading that exemption had been sought before the examination. The examination prospectus and notified amendment made it clear that exemption benefit was limited to three successive terms. The appellant had already availed the permitted exemptions for the relevant three terms, and no further exemption could be claimed. The Court also found that the appellant had not acted with due diligence in ascertaining the applicable examination instructions.
Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to exemption in Paper 18 for the June 2014 examination, and the challenge to the denial of exemption failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A candidate cannot claim examination exemption without establishing a valid and timely request, and where the governing regulations and prospectus limit the exemption to a fixed number of successive terms, no further exemption can be enforced beyond that limit.
TaxTMI 
