<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1955 (8) TMI 18 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97335</link>
    <description>A statutory auditor of a banking company must verify matters capable of direct verification, including cash in hand, make proper enquiries into unusual entries, and report material doubts clearly and fully. Reliance on management certificates without adequate verification, and cryptic reporting on doubtful loans and deposits, amounted to gross negligence and lack of due diligence. The Court also held that proof of misconduct within the Chartered Accountants Act schedule did not automatically require removal from the membership roll; disciplinary action remained subject to judicial discretion under section 21(3), and a lesser penalty could be imposed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Aug 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:03:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134393" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1955 (8) TMI 18 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97335</link>
      <description>A statutory auditor of a banking company must verify matters capable of direct verification, including cash in hand, make proper enquiries into unusual entries, and report material doubts clearly and fully. Reliance on management certificates without adequate verification, and cryptic reporting on doubtful loans and deposits, amounted to gross negligence and lack of due diligence. The Court also held that proof of misconduct within the Chartered Accountants Act schedule did not automatically require removal from the membership roll; disciplinary action remained subject to judicial discretion under section 21(3), and a lesser penalty could be imposed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Aug 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97335</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>