<?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>2016 (4) TMI 175 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326061</link>
    <description>The Karnataka High Court upheld the amendment to Section 63 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, which permits Cost Accountants and cost accountant firms to audit co-operative society accounts. It held that auditing co-operative societies was not shown to be the exclusive preserve of Chartered Accountants and that the amendment did not authorise Cost Accountants to perform any function reserved solely for Chartered Accountants. The statutory scheme was treated as allowing Cost Accountants to be included within the class of authorised auditors, so no legal infirmity was established in the amended provision and the writ petitions failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422687" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 175 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326061</link>
      <description>The Karnataka High Court upheld the amendment to Section 63 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, which permits Cost Accountants and cost accountant firms to audit co-operative society accounts. It held that auditing co-operative societies was not shown to be the exclusive preserve of Chartered Accountants and that the amendment did not authorise Cost Accountants to perform any function reserved solely for Chartered Accountants. The statutory scheme was treated as allowing Cost Accountants to be included within the class of authorised auditors, so no legal infirmity was established in the amended provision and the writ petitions failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326061</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>