<?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>2024 (5) TMI 1141 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753088</link>
    <description>A statutory professional body may impose a numerical ceiling on tax audit assignments where the governing Act empowers it to regulate professional standards and treat breach of Council-issued guidelines as misconduct. The ceiling was upheld as a reasonable regulatory restriction on the right to practise and as non-arbitrary because it served public interest in audit quality and tax administration. Exceeding the ceiling could constitute professional misconduct, but disciplinary proceedings were not sustained where uncertainty, prior litigation, interim restraint, and selective enforcement made penal action inequitable; the pending proceedings were quashed and the body was left free to revise the ceiling prospectively.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2024 17:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=754209" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (5) TMI 1141 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753088</link>
      <description>A statutory professional body may impose a numerical ceiling on tax audit assignments where the governing Act empowers it to regulate professional standards and treat breach of Council-issued guidelines as misconduct. The ceiling was upheld as a reasonable regulatory restriction on the right to practise and as non-arbitrary because it served public interest in audit quality and tax administration. Exceeding the ceiling could constitute professional misconduct, but disciplinary proceedings were not sustained where uncertainty, prior litigation, interim restraint, and selective enforcement made penal action inequitable; the pending proceedings were quashed and the body was left free to revise the ceiling prospectively.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753088</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>