ICAI

ICAI bans a CA for additional month and withdraws removal of another CA

ICAI bans a CA for additional month and withdraws removal of another CA for alleged misconduct

ICAI had earlier removed the names of these chartered accountants from the Register of Members and had also imposed a fine with condition that in case of default in payment of fine within stipulated time, his name be removed for additional one month period.

Since these CAs had failed to pay the imposed fine within stipulated time, the Disciplinary Committee in terms of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 and the Chartered Accountants Regulations 1988 has ordered their further removal as under:

Name of CA Period of removal
CA. Muthukumaran Jayaraman (Membership No. 207004) Virugambakkam, CHENNAI  Consolidated period of Thirteen months (one year plus additional one month) with effect from 14th February, 2022

Further in the following cases, the Appellate Authority had set aside the Order of the Disciplinary Committee holding the CA not Guilty of any misconduct. As a result his removal has been restored:

CA. Raj Seckhar M S (Membership No. 200772), Macheri Manor, Coimbatore order for removal of name is withdrawn

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

AO not justified in rejecting registered valuer’s report without reference to DVO – ITAT

AO not justified in rejecting registered valuer’s report without making a reference to the DVO - ITAT In a recent…

4 days ago
  • FCRA

FCRA specifies list of 105 purposes to be selected for which registration is applied

FCRA specifies list of purposes to be selected for which registration is applied.  The Ministry of Home Affairs has notified…

1 week ago
  • Income Tax

Withholding tax u/s 40(a)(i) not required on cost-to-cost reimbursement made to parent company

Assessee was not liable to withhold tax at source u/s 40(a)(i) on cost-to-cost reimbursement made to parent company In a…

1 week ago
  • Government

Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App not disproportionate – Delhi High Court

Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App under section 69A of IT Act 2000 is not disproportionate - Delhi HC…

1 week ago
  • Income Tax

High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA

High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA to means a project or an undertaking owned…

1 week ago
  • Income Tax

Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash not owner who came up to own it

Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash and the real owner had come forward owning the cash…

2 weeks ago