<?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>2015 (6) TMI 464 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260539</link>
    <description>Disciplinary proceedings against a chartered accountant were found to comply with the prescribed procedure and natural justice because notice and an opportunity to respond had been given. On sanction, the court noted that only one of three charges was sustained, the conduct involved casualness rather than deliberate dishonesty, and the reasons for imposing a harsher penalty were inadequate. As lesser punishments were not considered and the circumstances supported a lower sanction, the punishment of removal of name from the register for one month was reduced to reprimand, with remand declined because of the long pendency of the matter.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2015 11:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=387644" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 464 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260539</link>
      <description>Disciplinary proceedings against a chartered accountant were found to comply with the prescribed procedure and natural justice because notice and an opportunity to respond had been given. On sanction, the court noted that only one of three charges was sustained, the conduct involved casualness rather than deliberate dishonesty, and the reasons for imposing a harsher penalty were inadequate. As lesser punishments were not considered and the circumstances supported a lower sanction, the punishment of removal of name from the register for one month was reduced to reprimand, with remand declined because of the long pendency of the matter.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260539</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>