<?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 (2) TMI 77 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338377</link>
    <description>A chartered accountant must independently verify material balances, confirm disputed figures and ensure audit reports accurately reflect changes in accounts; failure to reconcile inconsistent balances, obtain proper confirmation, or report a material revision in audited figures amounts to professional misconduct. The Delhi High Court affirmed that certifying the complainant&#039;s deposit at one figure and later reducing it without a credible factual basis, while also neglecting to check the annexure against the members&#039; register or secure independent confirmation in a known dispute, justified disciplinary action. The court also upheld the sanction of removal from the register for one year as proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2017 08:38:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=457365" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 77 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338377</link>
      <description>A chartered accountant must independently verify material balances, confirm disputed figures and ensure audit reports accurately reflect changes in accounts; failure to reconcile inconsistent balances, obtain proper confirmation, or report a material revision in audited figures amounts to professional misconduct. The Delhi High Court affirmed that certifying the complainant&#039;s deposit at one figure and later reducing it without a credible factual basis, while also neglecting to check the annexure against the members&#039; register or secure independent confirmation in a known dispute, justified disciplinary action. The court also upheld the sanction of removal from the register for one year as proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338377</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>