<?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>1952 (4) TMI 42 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272573</link>
    <description>A chartered accountant engaged by private assessees must exercise due skill and diligence, prepare accurate statements from the accounts supplied, and avoid misrepresentation or assistance in false accounts. The court distinguished this role from a company audit, where wider scrutiny is required for shareholder protection. For individual clients, the accountant is not obliged to independently verify the truth or completeness of the accounts unless there is collusion, falsehood, or misleading conduct. On the facts, the statements were treated as based on the accounts produced by the clients, and no connivance or deception was found; the accountant was therefore not guilty of gross negligence or unfitness to remain a member of the Institute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 May 2018 17:09:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=519601" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1952 (4) TMI 42 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272573</link>
      <description>A chartered accountant engaged by private assessees must exercise due skill and diligence, prepare accurate statements from the accounts supplied, and avoid misrepresentation or assistance in false accounts. The court distinguished this role from a company audit, where wider scrutiny is required for shareholder protection. For individual clients, the accountant is not obliged to independently verify the truth or completeness of the accounts unless there is collusion, falsehood, or misleading conduct. On the facts, the statements were treated as based on the accounts produced by the clients, and no connivance or deception was found; the accountant was therefore not guilty of gross negligence or unfitness to remain a member of the Institute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272573</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>