https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359302 The court held that the Architects Act, 1972 only prohibits the use of the title 'architect' by unregistered individuals or entities, but does not prevent them from providing architectural services. It was determined that architectural services can be offered by both registered and unregistered persons. The court partially quashed certain Circulars and Notice that imposed restrictions beyond the Act's scope. The FIPB approval for a subsidiary providing architectural services was upheld after the entity changed its name to comply with the Act. en-us Wed, 25 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Apr 2018 07:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359302 The court held that the Architects Act, 1972 only prohibits the use of the title 'architect' by unregistered individuals or entities, but does not prevent them from providing architectural services. It was determined that architectural services can be offered by both registered and unregistered persons. The court partially quashed certain Circulars and Notice that imposed restrictions beyond the Act's scope. The FIPB approval for a subsidiary providing architectural services was upheld after the entity changed its name to comply with the Act. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 25 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359302