<?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>2017 (1) TMI 1111 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338031</link>
    <description>Section 21D was read to preserve pending complaints and pending information cases before the Council, so disciplinary proceedings already underway continued under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 as it stood before amendment. The transitional language was construed broadly, with support drawn from the General Clauses Act, and the reference was therefore maintainable under the unamended regime. On the misconduct concerning travel claims, the lapse was treated as casual rather than deliberate, the claimed entitlement was substantially supported, the return journey explanation was accepted, and the long pendency was considered. No penalty was imposed because punishment was found disproportionate to the proven misconduct.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:19:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=456206" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 1111 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338031</link>
      <description>Section 21D was read to preserve pending complaints and pending information cases before the Council, so disciplinary proceedings already underway continued under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 as it stood before amendment. The transitional language was construed broadly, with support drawn from the General Clauses Act, and the reference was therefore maintainable under the unamended regime. On the misconduct concerning travel claims, the lapse was treated as casual rather than deliberate, the claimed entitlement was substantially supported, the return journey explanation was accepted, and the long pendency was considered. No penalty was imposed because punishment was found disproportionate to the proven misconduct.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338031</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>