<?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>2022 (6) TMI 390 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423549</link>
    <description>The Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 148 of the Companies Act, 2013, as the company&#039;s turnover fell below the threshold requiring a Cost Auditor. The Court found the prosecution was initiated without verifying the financial thresholds specified in the Companies (Cost Records and Audit) Amendment Rules, 2014. It held that the proceedings were not in compliance with the Rules and ordered the quashing of the case against the petitioners.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2022 08:16:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=681511" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (6) TMI 390 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423549</link>
      <description>The Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 148 of the Companies Act, 2013, as the company&#039;s turnover fell below the threshold requiring a Cost Auditor. The Court found the prosecution was initiated without verifying the financial thresholds specified in the Companies (Cost Records and Audit) Amendment Rules, 2014. It held that the proceedings were not in compliance with the Rules and ordered the quashing of the case against the petitioners.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423549</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>