<?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>2007 (5) TMI 673 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290385</link>
    <description>A statutory body cannot, by notification, prohibit a Chartered Accountant from acquiring or holding an additional qualification such as CFA where Section 7 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 restricts only the use of descriptions and permits another qualification where entitled. The Act could not be expanded through administrative notification to treat mere acquisition of that qualification as professional misconduct, and the penal provisions required strict construction. The impugned notification was also held to travel beyond the parent statute and to impose an unreasonable restraint on professional freedom, making it ultra vires and inconsistent with Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2024 16:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=623048" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (5) TMI 673 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290385</link>
      <description>A statutory body cannot, by notification, prohibit a Chartered Accountant from acquiring or holding an additional qualification such as CFA where Section 7 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 restricts only the use of descriptions and permits another qualification where entitled. The Act could not be expanded through administrative notification to treat mere acquisition of that qualification as professional misconduct, and the penal provisions required strict construction. The impugned notification was also held to travel beyond the parent statute and to impose an unreasonable restraint on professional freedom, making it ultra vires and inconsistent with Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290385</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>